BLP, R. v (Rev1)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was convicted on 9 April 2024 at the Crown Court at Winchester of two counts of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences were committed on 21 November 2022 against the granddaughter of the applicant's partner, who was then aged 16. The applicant arranged to meet the victim under false pretences, taking her to a family home where the assaults occurred. The victim reported the incidents immediately to her grandmother. A victim impact statement described significant emotional and psychological harm suffered by the victim. The applicant denied the offences and did not accept responsibility, though he admitted some physical contact described as a "hug." The applicant was assessed as posing a medium risk of serious harm towards children. On 23 May 2024, the applicant was sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment concurrent on each count. The applicant subsequently applied for leave to appeal against sentence, which was refused by a single judge. This judgment concerns the renewal of that application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence and selecting the starting point and category within the sentencing guidelines.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence of psychological harm to justify the sentence uplift.
3. Whether the judge erred in finding an abuse of trust sufficient to elevate the culpability category.
4. Whether the judge erred in concluding there was a significant level of deception and planning warranting a higher category.
5. Whether the victim was shown to be "particularly vulnerable" as required for sentencing considerations.
6. Whether the sentence involved impermissible double counting of factors such as breach of trust, psychological harm, vulnerability, and planning.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reaffirmed the sentencing judge's classification of the offence as Category 2A with Category 2 harm and Culpability A, based on the vulnerability of the victim, the planning and deception involved, and the abuse of trust by the applicant. The judge did not find severe psychological harm but accepted the victim's personal statement evidencing significant psychological harm justifying an uplift within Category 2A. The court found no error in the judge's assessment of vulnerability, deception, planning, or abuse of trust. It also rejected the contention that there was double counting of aggravating factors. The court noted additional aggravating factors such as the offence's location and the applicant's attempt to dissuade the victim from reporting the offences. Consequently, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The direct effect is that the sentence of 40 months' imprisonment concurrent on each count stands. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.