Stanley. R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal against sentence following the Applicant's conviction and sentencing in the Crown Court at Liverpool. The Applicant pleaded guilty to three offences of publishing an obscene article contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, specifically involving the publication of videos depicting the torture of baby monkeys. The offences occurred between April and June 2023, with the material published on private Facebook groups. The Applicant was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, concurrent for each offence, after receiving one-third credit for guilty pleas. The maximum sentence for each offence was five years' imprisonment.

The offences were reported through a UK-based animal protection project aimed at ending abuse of monkeys for social media content. The investigation revealed a growing trend of such material appearing on public social media platforms, increasing accessibility and potential harm. The Applicant's involvement included sharing three particularly graphic videos with derogatory and encouraging comments. Police executed a search warrant, uncovering additional images and videos on the Applicant's phone. The Applicant admitted to sharing videos to gain access to private groups but denied direct involvement in the creation or financing of the abuse.

The Applicant had no previous convictions and was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm. A pre-sentence report recommended community rehabilitation and mental health treatment. The sentencing judge acknowledged the absence of offence-specific guidelines and imposed a custodial sentence primarily on grounds of punishment and deterrence, rejecting suspension despite personal mitigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the starting point for the sentence too high.
2. Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient credit for the Applicant's personal mitigation.
3. Whether the sentence should have been suspended rather than immediate custody imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The starting point of 33 months was too high, possibly influenced by analogy to the Animal Cruelty guideline, which was an imperfect comparison.
• The criminality lacked sophistication, the material was shared only within private Facebook groups, and there was no commercial element.
• The Applicant voluntarily removed himself from the groups, warranting greater credit for personal mitigation.
• The sentence should have been suspended with community and rehabilitation requirements as recommended in the pre-sentence report.
• The judge erred in concluding that immediate custody was necessary for appropriate punishment.
• The high prison population and its impact on conditions should have influenced the decision to suspend the sentence, relying on the recent case of Ali (Arie) [2023] EWCA Crim 232.

Respondent's Arguments

• The starting point was not excessive given the highly obscene and calculated cruelty depicted in the material.
• Publication to a private group does not mitigate the seriousness, as such groups further the market for this material.
• The absence of a commercial element is of limited relevance; sharing such material contributes to a global trade in abuse content.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the absence of offence-specific sentencing guidelines, applying the general Sentencing Council Overarching Principles and the test under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, focusing on offender culpability and harm caused or intended. The Applicant's culpability was high due to deliberate seeking and enthusiastic sharing of horrific material, as evidenced by his comments accompanying the videos.

The harm caused was significant, as proliferation depends on the active participation of individuals who access and share such content, thereby encouraging perpetrators. The court accepted the analogy to offences involving indecent images of children, where sharing contributes to market demand and harm.

Publication on a public social media platform, even within private groups, aggravated the offence due to increased accessibility and normalization of violence, as supported by expert evidence. The court rejected the Applicant's argument that the judge was improperly influenced by the Animal Cruelty guideline, noting it was an imperfect analogy and that the starting point was within a reasonable range.

The court declined to provide general sentencing guidance for such offences, emphasizing fact-specific assessments. It upheld the judge's assessment of personal mitigation and concluded that the sentence of 20 months, reflecting one-third reduction for guilty pleas, was justified and not manifestly excessive.

Regarding suspension, the court found the guidance from Ali (Arie) inapplicable, as the current case lacked the exceptional circumstances present there. The sentencing judge properly weighed the factors for and against suspension, concluding that immediate custody was necessary for appropriate punishment. The court found no error in this conclusion and considered it plainly correct.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

The court's decision affirms the sentencing judge's judgment that immediate custody was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence. The ruling confirms that sharing extreme abusive content on social media, even within private groups, warrants significant custodial sentences. No new precedent was established; the decision underscores the application of existing sentencing principles to emerging forms of criminal conduct involving online animal cruelty material.