Factual and Procedural Background
The male appellant ("Appellant 1") was charged with 13 counts of sexual offences against children. On 2 August 2023, in the Crown Court at The City, he pleaded guilty to all counts except counts 1 and 13, to which he later pleaded guilty on 30 August 2023. On 20 November 2023, Appellant 1 was sentenced to a determinate term of 15 years' imprisonment plus an extended licence period of 5 years on count 1, with concurrent sentences on other counts.
The female appellant ("Appellant 2"), partner of Appellant 1, was charged with six counts of sexual offences against children. She pleaded guilty to all offences on 2 August 2023 and was sentenced on 20 November 2023 to a determinate term of 10 years' imprisonment plus an extended licence period of 5 years on count 2, with concurrent sentences on other counts.
Both appellants appealed their sentences with leave granted by a single judge.
Between 30 November and 25 December 2022, a party was held at Appellant 1's home attended by teenage girls aged 14 to 15. Appellant 1 engaged in inappropriate conduct including verbal abuse, encouraging alcohol consumption, and sexual touching of several girls. He also engaged in sexually explicit messaging with one teenage complainant ("Complainant 2").
Appellant 1 was arrested on 28 May 2023 for sexual assault offences involving the teenage girls, charged under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
On seizure of Appellant 1's phone, videos and images were discovered depicting sexual abuse of a young child aged 6-8 years ("Complainant 1"), including digital penetration and sexual assault, involving both appellants. Both were charged with offences including assault by penetration, sexual assault, making indecent images of children, and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, under various sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The offences span a substantial date range from 2021 to 2023.
Neither appellant had relevant previous convictions; Appellant 2 was of good character. Victim personal statements and pre-sentence reports were considered during sentencing. The reports noted minimisation and justification of offending by Appellant 1, and influence and possible coercive control affecting Appellant 2, who was actively engaged in the offending conduct.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the harm level for the lead offences committed by both appellants.
- Whether the sentences passed, including uplifted determinate terms and concurrent sentences, were manifestly excessive, taking into account totality and credit for guilty pleas.
- Whether the uplift applied to the lead offence sentences appropriately reflected the culpability and harm without breaching principles of totality.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant 1's Arguments
- Challenged the harm categorisation as category 2, submitting it should be category 3 based on victim personal statements.
- Argued that the sentence uplift of 5 years was unjustified given the other offences and guilty pleas.
- Contended the sentence on count 1 was manifestly excessive in totality.
Appellant 2's Arguments
- Submitted that the notional sentence before credit for plea was at the outer limits of category 2A and thus manifestly excessive.
- Argued there was no justification for the sentencing judge to exceed the starting point for the lead offence.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court applied the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to ensure anonymity of victims. It accepted the sentencing judge's categorisation of harm as category 2 for the lead offences, based primarily on the vulnerability of the child victim being asleep during the assault, rejecting arguments for category 3 harm.
The court analysed the sentencing judge's approach to credit for guilty pleas, confirming that appropriate discounts were applied. It noted that the sentencing judge uplifted the determinate sentences on the lead offences to reflect culpability factors such as abuse of trust, recording of offences, and the vulnerability of the child.
However, the court found that the uplifted sentences did not sufficiently take into account the principle of totality, particularly in relation to the concurrent sentences passed for multiple offences. The court concluded that the uplift resulted in sentences that were manifestly excessive in totality.
As a result, the court allowed both appeals and substituted reduced determinate terms for the lead offences, maintaining the extended licence periods and other concurrent sentences. The court emphasised the serious and predatory nature of the offending but balanced this with the need to ensure proportionate sentencing overall.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED the appeals against sentence for both appellants.
For Appellant 1, the court substituted an extended sentence with a determinate term of 13 years' imprisonment and an extended licence period of 5 years on the lead count, leaving other concurrent sentences undisturbed.
For Appellant 2, the court substituted an extended sentence with a determinate term of 8 years' imprisonment and an extended licence period of 5 years on the lead count, with other concurrent sentences unchanged.
The court did not interfere with findings of dangerousness, the imposition of extended sentences, or licence periods. No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily adjusted sentences to reflect proper application of sentencing principles, particularly totality and credit for guilty pleas.