Brzozowski, 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, passed by Her Honour Judge Wright at the Crown Court at Sheffield on 21 May 2025. The offender pleaded guilty to a single offence of sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The sentence imposed was 21 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

The offence involved a victim (referred to as V) who was 15 years old at the time and a friend (referred to as F), both residents of a children's home in Rotherham in 2011. The offender's conduct occurred in the context of wider abuse perpetrated by two co-defendants, who committed multiple rapes against the victims. The offender engaged in sexual activity with V after an invitation to a private room, which was interrupted by one co-defendant. The offender then left and did not reoffend. He was acquitted of a separate charge of inciting F to sexual activity.

The offender was 21 at the time of the offence, with no previous convictions but one caution for possession of cocaine. Psychological and pre-sentence reports indicated borderline intellectual functioning and clinically significant anxiety and depression. The judge observed the offender during trial and considered reports and victim impact statements before sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the offender's conduct should have been categorised under category 1A or 1B of the sentencing guideline for sexual offences involving children.
2. Whether the sentence of 21 months suspended for 2 years was unduly lenient given the nature of the offence and the offender's circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The offence should be categorised as 1A due to the penetration, use of alcohol to facilitate the offence, specific targeting of a vulnerable child, and significant age disparity between offender and victim.
• The offender was aware of the victim's vulnerability and the co-defendants' abusive conduct.
• The seriousness of the offence warranted a custodial sentence that was not capable of suspension.
• Even if the case fell into a gap between categories 1A and 1B, the sentence was too lenient.

Offender's Arguments

• The judge was best placed to assess the seriousness and circumstances, having observed the offender throughout the trial.
• The categorisation as 1B and the suspended sentence were justified given the offender’s intellectual functioning and personal characteristics.
• The offender’s cooperation and evidence against co-defendants supported a more lenient approach.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the categorisation of the offence under the sentencing guideline, considering the prosecution's concessions during trial. It found no evidence that the offender administered alcohol to the victim or specifically targeted her, as that conduct was attributed to co-defendants. The victim’s intoxication was considered an aggravating factor but not to the extent of placing the offence in category 1A. The court accepted the judge’s assessment that the offender’s intellectual functioning and maturity, similar to the victim’s, justified a nuanced approach to the age disparity issue. The court emphasised that the decision was fact-specific and not a precedent on age disparity generally.

Given these factors, the court held that the judge was entitled to classify the offence as category 1B, at the higher end of that category, and to impose a suspended custodial sentence. The sentence was described as humane, carefully considered, and at the bottom end of the permissible range. Although arguably lenient, the court was not persuaded to intervene.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to refer the sentence but ultimately DISMISSED THE REFERENCE, upholding the suspended sentence of 21 months imposed by the Crown Court judge.

The direct effect is that the sentence remains in place. No new legal principles or precedents were established, and the decision is explicitly limited to the facts of this case.