Legg, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient in a case involving the Defendant, aged between 46 and 49 at the time of offending, convicted on 24 January 2025 of assault of a child under 13 by penetration contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The victim, aged between 8 and 10 at the time of the offence, benefits from lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2002.

The Defendant was found to have groomed the victim during visits to his home, culminating in the assault. The victim made a near contemporaneous complaint to a friend, and later disclosures were made to a school safeguarding officer and the victim’s mother approximately five to seven years after the offence. The Defendant denied the offence during a voluntary police interview. The trial faced multiple delays due to external factors such as Bar strike action, inadmissible evidence, and defence counsel illness, finally commencing in January 2025 and resulting in conviction.

At sentencing, the judge categorized the offence as category 3A under the relevant guideline, finding significant but not severe psychological harm to the victim. The starting point was set at six years, increased to seven years for enhanced harm, then reduced to six years after mitigation, with an additional one-year extended licence period imposed. Mitigating factors included trial delays, impact on the Defendant’s family and employment, and positive progress in prison. The Defendant continued to deny the offence post-conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in categorizing the offence as category 3A instead of category 2A due to the level of psychological harm suffered by the victim.
2. Whether the judge should have made a greater upward adjustment to the sentence to reflect ongoing psychological harm.
3. Whether the judge gave undue weight to mitigating factors, including the Defendant’s previous good character, in the context of a serious sexual offence against a child.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offence should have been categorized as 2A rather than 3A because the victim suffered severe psychological harm.
• If the 3A categorization was correct, the starting point should have been significantly increased to reflect ongoing psychological harm.
• The judge gave excessive weight to the Defendant’s previous good character, which should not substantially mitigate a serious sexual offence against a child.

Defendant's Arguments

• The judge correctly categorized the offence as 3A, finding significant but not severe psychological harm, based on direct observation of the victim’s evidence.
• The judge made an appropriate upward adjustment for enhanced harm.
• The judge rightly considered mitigation including trial delays affecting both parties, the impact of imprisonment on the Defendant’s family and employment, and positive progress in prison.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court granted leave to refer the sentence on the basis that the issue of whether there was severe psychological harm was arguable. The trial judge, having seen the victim give evidence, was best placed to assess the level of psychological harm and found it to be significant but not severe. This finding was supported by contemporaneous evidence including a letter from the victim and the fact of prolonged antidepressant use. The appellate court emphasized that such factual findings by the trial judge should not be disturbed unless unsupported or irrational.

Regarding sentence adjustment, the judge increased the starting point by one year to reflect enhanced harm, which the court deemed permissible, though it acknowledged that some judges might have increased it further. On mitigation, although good character normally carries little weight in serious sexual offences, the judge considered additional mitigating factors such as trial delays, family impact, and the Defendant’s conduct in prison. The court found no error in the judge’s assessment and concluded the sentence was not unduly lenient.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE to refer the sentence but ultimately DISMISSED THE REFERENCE, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The direct effect is that the Defendant’s sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence stands. The court emphasized that this decision does not diminish the seriousness of the offence or the harm suffered by the victim. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms the trial judge’s discretion in assessing psychological harm and weighing mitigation in sentencing serious sexual offences against children.