Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer the sentences imposed on the Defendant under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on the basis that they were unduly lenient. The Defendant was convicted on 23 October 2024 at the Crown Court in The City of 12 offences arising from a course of sexual offending against 11 victims. The offences included five counts of sexual assault and seven counts of exposure. The Defendant was sentenced on 30 January 2025 by Mr Recorder Lowe to a total term of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, alongside conventional ancillary orders including a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
The offending occurred primarily at an underpass near Cambridge Street in The City, a location frequently used by young women attending a nearby university. The Defendant deliberately travelled from his residence in a different area to commit the offences, which involved exposing himself and sexually assaulting victims who were mostly young women and girls aged between 13 and 24 years. Two offences of exposure occurred at a second location in the area where the Defendant lives, involving younger victims aged 13 and 16.
The Defendant denied all offences throughout the investigation and trial, despite overwhelming evidence including CCTV footage, DNA evidence, and positive identification by six victims. The Defendant did not give evidence at trial and continued to deny offending post-trial. The Defendant has relevant prior convictions from 2015 for exposure and stalking offences involving schoolgirls and students in the area where he lives. The custodial sentence imposed in the present case is his first custodial term.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were unduly lenient.
- Whether the sexual assault offences engaged the categorisation A1 under sentencing guidelines.
- Whether the multiplicity of offending warranted a substantial uplift in sentence to reflect totality.
- Whether the trial judge erred by failing to impose an extended determinate sentence to protect the public from a high risk of serious harm.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's (Solicitor General's) Arguments
- The trial judge failed to clearly identify that the sexual assault offences were category A1, which involves significant violence and a starting point of four years’ custody.
- The multiplicity of offences required a substantial uplift from starting points to ensure the sentence was proportionate to the overall offending.
- The judge erred in not imposing an extended determinate sentence, which was necessary to protect the public from the significant risk posed by the Defendant.
Defendant's Arguments
- The trial judge was in the best position to assess the criminality and properly exercised discretion regarding the necessity of an extended determinate sentence.
- Although the judge did not explicitly state the Defendant was dangerous, the reference to discretion and the substantial sentence indicates the judge found the Defendant to be dangerous.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court agreed with the Solicitor General that the sentences were unduly lenient. It reasoned that the sexual assault offences were properly classified as category A1, reflecting significant violence and serious aggravating factors such as persistence and planning. The court found it inappropriate to impose a sentence for all five sexual assault offences equivalent to that justified for any single offence alone, especially considering the Defendant’s prior convictions.
Regarding the exposure offences, the court noted the maximum sentence for each is two years and observed the Defendant’s behaviour as obsessive and indicative of escalating risk, moving from exposure and stalking to serious contact offences. The court concluded that concurrent two-year sentences for each exposure offence were appropriate.
The court emphasized the Defendant’s persistent denial and lack of insight as aggravating factors, reinforcing the assessment that he is a dangerous offender posing a significant risk of serious harm to young women and girls. Consequently, an extended determinate sentence was necessary to protect the public.
The court also explained the statutory limits on sentencing, noting the maximum custodial sentence for sexual assault is ten years, which circumscribes the length of the extended determinate sentence it could impose.
Holding and Implications
The court QUASHED the sentences imposed by the trial judge and substituted new sentences as follows:
- Concurrent custodial sentences of seven years for each of the five sexual assault counts.
- Concurrent custodial sentences of two years for each of the exposure counts.
- An extended determinate sentence of ten years concurrently on the sexual assault counts, reflecting the maximum statutory limit and the dangerousness of the Defendant.
All other ancillary orders made by the trial judge remain in force. The decision directly increases the custodial sentence and imposes an extended determinate sentence to address the significant public protection concerns posed by the Defendant. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.