Grace, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence regarded as unduly lenient. The sentence was imposed by HHJ Richardson KC, the Recorder of Sheffield, on 8 May 2025, involving a 3-year community order for six offences committed by the Offender when aged 16. Four offences were pleaded guilty to on 2 April 2024 when the Offender was 17, and two further offences were pleaded guilty to on 21 November 2024 when the Offender was 18. The Offender was 19 at sentencing.

The offences included inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and attempted rape, alongside sexual assault of a child under 13 and offences related to taking and distributing indecent photographs of a child.

The Offender and the victim ("V") are closely related, with the Offender being 10 years older. The offending occurred when V was aged 5 or 6, and the Offender was 16. The offences took place mainly at V's home, where the Offender frequently stayed overnight. The offending included non-penetrative sexual acts, taking hundreds of indecent photographs of V, and distributing some images online.

The police became aware of the abuse after tracing distributed photographs back to the Offender, who was arrested and admitted to taking and distributing indecent images. Interviews with both V and the Offender revealed further details of the offending and the Offender's interactions with older individuals online who pressured him into the conduct.

Procedurally, the Offender pleaded guilty to multiple charges before the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. The case involved complex negotiations, with some charges dropped and pleas accepted to others, avoiding the need for V to give evidence. Reports on the Offender's mental health and circumstances were obtained to assist sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Recorder was unduly lenient given the seriousness and persistence of the offences committed by the Offender as a child.
2. The appropriate sentencing approach for a young offender with neurodevelopmental disorders and vulnerabilities, including the application of sentencing guidelines for children and young people.
3. The validity and appropriateness of the sentencing powers used by the Crown Court in light of the Offender's age at the time of plea and sentencing.
4. The extent to which coercion and exploitation by others mitigates the Offender's culpability and affects the sentencing outcome.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The offences were serious and persistent, including an attempted rape that nearly succeeded and caused pain to the victim.
• The significant age disparity between the Offender and the very young victim aggravated the seriousness.
• Although the Offender was coerced by others online, the grooming and abuse were persistent and serious.
• The Offender not only committed contact offences but also took and distributed indecent photographs of the victim.
• The victim has suffered significant psychological harm, as demonstrated in victim impact statements.
• The seriousness of the offences necessitated a custodial sentence; failure to impose such a sentence rendered the original sentence unduly lenient.
• Coercion was given undue prominence by the Recorder, ignoring multi-factorial causes of the Offender’s behaviour and expert evidence excluding impulsivity as a cause.

Offender's Arguments

• A non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the Offender’s age, vulnerabilities, and genuine remorse.
• The Recorder had the benefit of extensive personal assessment of the Offender and was justified in finding the Offender’s remorse genuine.
• The mitigation was described as "immense," and rehabilitation prospects were strong.
• The case did not involve grooming as usually understood, and the attempted rape charge should be treated as non-penetrative as there was no actual penetration.
• The sentence imposed was not unduly lenient and was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the Recorder’s expertise and the humane motivation to focus on rehabilitation given the Offender’s youth and vulnerabilities. The central question was whether the offending was so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate.

The court accepted that the custody threshold was passed and that the Offender was immature and vulnerable at the time of offending. The Recorder’s sentencing exercise was detailed and conscious of the relevant sentencing guidelines for children and young people.

However, the court found the Recorder erred by imposing a non-custodial sentence. The scale and persistence of the offending, including serious contact offences, distribution of indecent images, and significant psychological harm to the victim, warranted a custodial sentence. The court endorsed the Recorder’s own assessment that a 3½ year custodial sentence would have been appropriate if custody were imposed.

The court found that the Recorder gave excessive weight to the Offender’s coercion by others online, overstating the extent to which the Offender was forced to commit the acts. Expert evidence excluded impulsivity as a cause, and the Offender’s residual responsibility remained significant.

Furthermore, the Offender was assessed as posing a high risk of future harm, supporting the need for custodial intervention. The court also noted that the grooming element was rightly accepted by the Recorder.

Technical legal issues concerning the sentencing powers of the Crown Court and youth court were addressed. The court identified errors in the statutory basis for committal and the availability of community orders given the Offender’s age at plea and sentencing. These errors required adjustment of the sentences to ensure legality.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded the original sentences were unduly lenient and substituted custodial sentences accordingly.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE to refer the sentence and QUASHED all sentences imposed by the Crown Court.

On Counts 5 and 6, the court imposed concurrent sentences of 3½ years detention in a young offender institution pursuant to section 262 of the Sentencing Code.

No separate penalty was imposed on Charges 1, 2, 4, and 5, with their criminality reflected in the lead sentences.

The Victim Surcharge Order was set at £34.

The direct effect is the imposition of custodial sentences reflecting the seriousness of the offending and correcting the unlawfulness and leniency of the original sentence. The judgment underscores the careful balancing required when sentencing young offenders with vulnerabilities but does not establish new legal precedent beyond applying existing sentencing guidelines and statutory provisions.