Edun, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an offender who was sentenced following convictions related to sexual offences involving the encouragement and assistance of the rape of a two-week-old baby, who was the daughter of another individual ("X"). The offender operated a Kik account under the pseudonym "Sallyoc1996" and engaged in communications encouraging X to sexually abuse his daughter, including the exchange of graphic videos and images. The offender was also involved in a Kik group chat where discussions about the sexual abuse of children took place, and he deleted the Kik application from his phone upon execution of a search warrant, obstructing the investigation.

The offender pleaded guilty to six counts, including two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting offences contrary to section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, offences of making and distributing indecent images of children, and perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced at the Crown Court at Croydon on 14 February 2025 to an extended sentence of 21 years and six months' imprisonment, comprising 13 years and six months' custodial term and an eight-year extended licence period.

His Majesty's Attorney General applied for permission to refer the sentence as unduly lenient, particularly challenging the categorisation and length of the sentence on the lead offence (count 2). The offender, of previous good character and aged 48 at sentencing, maintained that the sentence was correct and justifiable. Permission for the reference was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on count 2 (intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence of rape of a child under 13) was unduly lenient due to mis-categorisation of harm and culpability.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed adequately to reflect the seriousness of the offending represented by the aggregate conduct, including other counts.
3. The proper application of sentencing principles for offences under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, particularly in relation to inchoate offences and reliance on guidelines for substantive offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• The judge erred in treating count 2 as a Category 2A harm offence rather than Category 1A, given the victim's extreme vulnerability as a two-week-old baby, warranting a higher starting point for sentencing.
• The sentence failed to adequately reflect the aggregate criminality, particularly the seriousness of other counts such as perverting the course of justice.
• The starting point for count 2 should have been 16 years with a range of 13 to 19 years, rather than 13 years, making the imposed sentence unduly lenient.

Offender's Arguments

• The sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence and applied appropriate reductions for the inchoate nature of the offence and the principle of totality.
• The offender's encouragement did not cause the instigation of the substantive offence.
• The sentence was correct and justifiable based on the evidence and circumstances before the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the application of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to protect the victim’s identity. It then considered the Attorney General’s reference concerning the sentence imposed on the offender for count 2.

The court analysed the factual matrix, including the offender’s conduct encouraging the rape of a two-week-old infant, the offender’s knowledge of the victim’s extreme vulnerability, and the offender’s active role in communications with X during the commission of the offence.

Applying established principles from Hendron and Watling, the court acknowledged that although the offence under section 44 is inchoate, sentencing must consider the gravity of the substantive offence encouraged. The court endorsed the sentencing judge’s approach but found that the harm categorisation was erroneously low.

Relying on AZ, the court held that the victim’s extreme youth elevated the harm category to Category 1A, warranting a higher starting point of 16 years rather than 13. The court further reasoned that the aggregate seriousness of the offender’s conduct, including the perverting the course of justice offence, justified an upward adjustment beyond the starting point to at least 18 years before plea discount.

The court applied a 10% reduction for the offender’s late guilty plea, resulting in a notional sentence of approximately 16 years and two months.

In conclusion, the court found the original sentence unduly lenient due to the mis-categorisation of harm and failure to adequately reflect the totality of offending, justifying interference with the sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the sentence imposed on count 2 and substituted an extended sentence comprising 16 years and two months' custodial term and an eight-year extended licence period, totaling 24 years and two months.

The direct effect of this decision is an increase in the offender’s sentence to better reflect the extreme vulnerability of the victim and the overall seriousness of the offending conduct. No new precedent beyond the authoritative application of existing case law was established. The decision corrects the sentencing error without unfairness to the offender and upholds the principle that inchoate offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007 must be sentenced with close regard to the gravity of the substantive offences encouraged.