Anonymized Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge Singh, concerns an application by the Solicitor General for leave to refer certain sentences to this Court under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground that they were unduly lenient. The underlying offences occurred on 29 December 2024 in The City. The Defendant (then aged 45) pleaded guilty on 27 March 2025 to counts of sexual activity with a child and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The Crown Court in The City ultimately imposed an extended determinate sentence with a custodial term of 4 years, 9 months and 15 days and an extended licence period of 3 years. Additional ancillary orders included a victim surcharge, a sexual harm prevention order until further order, indefinite notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act regime, and potential inclusion on a barred list through the relevant listing mechanism.

Factual summary (as agreed in the Final Reference): On the afternoon of 29 December 2024 a 15-year-old Victim asked the Defendant to buy vodka. The Defendant bought vodka for the Victim. They then moved to two locations where sexual activity occurred, including full intercourse on two occasions and other sexual acts. The Victim was drinking alcohol and became increasingly intoxicated; no contraception was used. The Defendant stated in interview that he believed the Victim to be older and that he ejaculated outside the Victim's body. The Defendant had an extensive criminal record including previous sexual offending against a child under 16 and multiple breaches of notification and court orders. At the time of the offending he had been released on licence six days earlier, with conditions prohibiting contact with females under 18; his licence was revoked after his arrest.

Procedural history: The Defendant first appeared before the Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court. Early hearings included a plea and trial preparation hearing, a scheduled pre-recorded cross-examination of the Victim and a trial date. The Defendant initially pleaded not guilty but later offered guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty to counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 on 27 March 2025. Sentencing occurred in May 2025 and was adjusted on 24 July 2025 under the sentencing code to the final sentence described above.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial term imposed by the Crown Court was unduly lenient for the offences of sexual activity with a child and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, such that leave to refer under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 should be granted.
2. Whether, applying established principles governing Attorney-General references, this Court should exercise its discretion to increase the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments (represented by Attorney Faure-Walker)

• Accepts the Crown Court correctly identified the offence category as category 1A and the guideline starting point of 5 years' custody with a category range of 4–10 years, but contends the aggravating features warranted a materially greater elevation from that starting point than the one year actually applied by the Recorder.
• Relied on the following aggravating factors: relevant previous convictions including prior contact sexual offending and repeated breaches of protective measures; the offences were committed while the Defendant was on licence only six days after release; ejaculation occurred; no contraception was used; vulnerability of the Victim due to alcohol consumption.
• Submitted that, even if sentences were made concurrent, the custodial term should reflect the Defendant's overall criminal behaviour and that the circumstances (whether viewed as one prolonged incident or two closely related incidents) warranted a higher notional sentence prior to discount for plea.
• Did not challenge the 20% reduction for guilty pleas.

Defendant's Arguments (represented by Attorney Colley)

• Submitted the sentence was not unduly lenient and fell within the reasonable range the Recorder could have imposed, having correctly applied the guideline and the principle of totality.
• Accepted that the previous conviction, ejaculation, offending on licence and Victim vulnerability were aggravating, but argued the previous sexual conviction was 15 years earlier and bore distinguishing features from the index offences (it involved a relationship rather than a stranger).
• Contended the offending was opportunistic rather than predatory and that many breaches of orders were attributable to homelessness and substance misuse rather than deliberate avoidance of supervision.
• Argued the Recorder correctly set a notional sentence (6 years), elevated by 12 months from the 5-year starting point, and then reduced by 20% for plea, resulting in the sentence imposed. Contended concurrent sentences were properly imposed.
• Asserted there was remorse as evidenced by an early guilty plea before pre-recorded cross-examination of the Victim was necessary.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by restating the established principles governing applications under section 36 of the 1988 Act, drawing on the authorities set out in the table above. The analysis proceeded in the following manner:

1. Standard of review and deference: The Court emphasised the high degree of deference owed to the trial judge's sentencing exercise. It reiterated that an increased sentence is only appropriate where the original sentence is unduly lenient, meaning it falls outside the range which the sentencing judge could reasonably regard as appropriate.
2. Application of sentencing guideline: The Recorder had correctly identified the offence category as category 1A under the Definitive Guideline for Sexual Activity with a Child/Causing or Inciting a Child to Engage in Sexual Activity and had recognised the guideline starting point (5 years) and category range (4–10 years). The Court noted the Recorder elevated the notional sentence above the starting point to 6 years before applying a 20% reduction for the guilty pleas.
3. Assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors: The Court examined the aggravating factors relied upon by the Solicitor General (previous relevant convictions, offending on licence shortly after release, ejaculation, absence of contraception, and the Victim's vulnerability due to alcohol) and the mitigating considerations advanced by the Defence (time elapsed since previous conviction, distinguishing features of that conviction, opportunistic rather than predatory nature of the index offending, contributory role of homelessness and substance misuse to breaches, and the plea/claimed remorse).
4. Evaluation of dangerousness and extension: The Recorder had found the Defendant dangerous in the statutory sense and imposed an extended determinate sentence with an extended licence period. The Court observed the Recorder's reasoning in relation to dangerousness and noted that the Recorder treated counts 4 and 6 as lead offences and explicitly addressed the need to manage risk to the public.
5. No gross error identified: Applying the Egan principles, the Court concluded that the Recorder had applied his mind to the relevant factors, did not take irrelevant matters into account, and reached a sentence that fell within the reasonable range open to him. The Court emphasised that the Solicitor General's submissions amounted to inviting the appellate court to re-evaluate matters of weight and judgment for which the sentencing judge was particularly well placed — a course not open on a s36 reference unless a gross error is demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court refused the application for leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Implications:

• The original sentence imposed by the Crown Court (an extended determinate custodial term of 4 years, 9 months and 15 days with an extended licence period of 3 years, together with ancillary orders) remains in force.
• The Court held that the Recorder's sentencing decision fell within the range of sentences which he could reasonably consider appropriate; no gross error warranting appellate intervention under s36 was identified.
• No broader or novel precedent was established by this refusal; the decision reiterates and applies established principles about deference to sentencing judges, the limited scope of s36 references, and the necessity for a sentence to fall outside the reasonable range before it can be increased on referral.

Note on anonymization: All personal identifiers from the source opinion have been replaced with consistent generic placeholders (e.g., "Defendant", "Victim", "Judge [Last Name]", "Attorney [Last Name]", "The City", "The Crown Court", "The Hospital", "The Solicitor General", "The Charity", "Entity A") to ensure confidentiality while preserving the substantive content and legal analysis contained in the provided opinion.