Coils, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 28 November 2023, the Applicant, then a Corporal in the Royal Air Force, pleaded guilty to an offence of voyeurism contrary to section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in breach of section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. On 7 June 2024, before Assistant Judge Advocate General Smith and a Board, the Applicant was sentenced to a Service Community Order for two years, including a specified activity program of up to 90 days and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 10 days. He was dismissed from His Majesty's Armed Forces and a destruction order was made in respect of his mobile phone. By virtue of his conviction, the Applicant became subject to five years of notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against his sentence was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

The victim, referred to as "V" to protect her identity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, was a junior rank member and had previously been in a sexual relationship with the Applicant, which had ended before the offence. On the night of the offence, after socialising and drinking alcohol, V became very intoxicated and was taken by the Applicant to his room at the air base. V was in a vulnerable state, partially unconscious and naked from the waist down. The Applicant took a photograph of V on his mobile phone for his sexual gratification, which he later deleted when sober. The photograph was not shared with anyone else.

The Court-Martial considered relevant sentencing guidelines including those from the Judge Advocate General and the Sentencing Council, categorising the offence as Category 2 with raised culpability due to the victim's vulnerability but without raised harm. The Applicant had an exemplary service record and was assessed as posing a medium risk of emotional and psychological harm if reoffending. Testimonials highlighted his good character and conduct. V provided a victim personal statement describing significant adverse effects on her enthusiasm for Service life and wellbeing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Court-Martial, including dismissal and a two-year Service Community Order, was manifestly excessive.
2. The appropriateness of the length and nature of the Service Community Order given the circumstances of the offence and the Applicant’s personal mitigation.
3. The proper application of sentencing guidelines and statutory provisions governing Service Community Orders and notification requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly the length of the Service Community Order.
• The Court-Martial effectively only reduced the maximum available Service Community Order by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.
• The circumstances of the offence—a single still image existing briefly and seen only by the Applicant—warranted a sentence at the lowest end of the guideline range before personal mitigation.
• Personal mitigation included the Applicant’s exemplary Service record and other commendable aspects of his career.
• A Service Community Order of less than 12 months combined with dismissal would have been just and proportionate, avoiding onerous notification requirements.

Respondent's Arguments

• The approach taken by the Court-Martial was correct and cannot be faulted.
• The offence had serious aspects which were properly considered in sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court affirmed that the Court-Martial correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for voyeurism offences, starting at the appropriate Category 2 level with raised culpability due to the victim's vulnerability. The Court-Martial properly balanced aggravating factors—such as the victim's vulnerability, difference in rank, and the Applicant's intoxication—with significant mitigating factors including the Applicant's exemplary service record, early guilty plea, and the deletion of the photograph.

The Court noted that dismissal from the Service was regarded as a substantial punishment in itself and that the Service Community Order was intended primarily for rehabilitation rather than additional punishment. The duration of the Order was determined by the period necessary to complete the rehabilitative requirements, not merely as a punitive measure reduced for the guilty plea. The Court recognized that a Service Community Order of less than one year would be insufficient to complete the necessary rehabilitation activities.

The Court also emphasized that notification requirements are a statutory consequence of conviction and sentencing and are not part of the sentence subject to appeal. The Court found no error in the Court-Martial’s approach or sentence and rejected the Applicant's submissions.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The holding confirms the appropriateness of the Court-Martial’s sentence comprising dismissal and a two-year Service Community Order focused on rehabilitation. The decision underscores that dismissal in the Service context is a significant punishment and that community orders may serve rehabilitative purposes without additional punitive intent. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms existing statutory and guideline frameworks governing sentencing in the Service and sexual offences.