Green, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, aged 40 at the time, pleaded guilty on 27 November 2024 in the Crown Court at Leeds to one count of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was sentenced on 6 January 2025 by His Honour Judge Bayliss KC to 16 months' imprisonment. The appellant appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, arguing the starting point was too high and that the custodial sentence should have been suspended.

The offending occurred on 26 January 2024 on a bus traveling from Wakefield to Castleford. The victim, a 15-year-old female ("C1"), and her friend were seated at the rear of the bus when the appellant boarded under the influence of alcohol. The appellant engaged C1 in conversation, made inappropriate sexual comments, and repeatedly touched her thigh in a sexual manner over a period of approximately 40 minutes. The victim was visibly upset and fearful, and the female bus driver intervened and contacted the police, leading to the appellant’s arrest.

The appellant had a history of 10 previous convictions for 13 offences, including a prior indecent assault on a female under 16 when he was a juvenile. Reports prepared before sentencing included a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report, which detailed the appellant’s background of childhood sexual abuse, learning disabilities, conduct disorder, and mixed personality disorder traits. The reports assessed the appellant as posing a high risk of harm to teenage girls, particularly when under the influence of alcohol.

The sentencing judge categorized the offence as Category 2 with culpability level B, set a starting point of one year’s custody with a range up to two years, and imposed a 16-month immediate custodial sentence after credit for the guilty plea. The judge considered aggravating factors including the appellant’s intoxication, the persistent nature of the offending, the victim’s vulnerability, and the presence of witnesses.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial sentence of 16 months was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in not suspending the custodial sentence and instead imposing immediate imprisonment.
3. Whether the appellant’s mental disorders and background reduced his culpability and justified a different sentencing approach.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant accepted the categorization of the offence as B2 and the victim’s vulnerability but argued the mental disorder stemming from childhood abuse should reduce culpability.
• He expressed remorse and submitted that substantial mitigation existed, including his mental health issues and lack of prior custodial sentences.
• It was contended that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence at the top of the range and failing to suspend the sentence with appropriate community-based requirements.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that a suspended sentence coupled with an Accredited Sexual Offence Programme, Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, and Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement would better serve rehabilitation and risk management.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the appellant’s learning disabilities and mental disorders but found no significant reduction in culpability. The court emphasized several aggravating factors: the appellant’s intoxication, the sustained and persistent nature of the sexual conduct, the victim’s vulnerability due to age and setting, and the presence of witnesses including the victim’s companion. Balancing these factors, the court concluded that a two-year custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing range was not manifestly excessive.

However, the court identified merit in the appellant’s second ground of appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the complexities of the appellant’s background and the best means to manage his risk of reoffending. The court noted that the immediate custodial sentence prevented the appellant’s participation in rehabilitative programmes and addressing alcohol issues, as confirmed by the prison report. It concluded that a suspended sentence with appropriate conditions would better manage the appellant’s risk and support rehabilitation while providing punishment and protection for the public.

On this basis, the court held that the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a suspended sentence order with conditions including residence requirements, a sexual offending programme, rehabilitation activities, a curfew, and alcohol abstinence monitoring.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal against sentence.

The 16-month immediate custodial sentence was quashed and substituted with a 16-month sentence suspended for 24 months subject to conditions: no further offences, supervision, residence requirement, completion of an accredited sexual offending programme, participation in rehabilitation activities, a curfew with electronic monitoring, and an alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement.

If the appellant complies with the conditions, the suspended sentence will not take effect. Breach of any condition may lead to activation or modification of the sentence. The decision directly affects the appellant’s sentence but does not establish new precedent.