Anonymized Summary of Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application by the Appellant for a lengthy extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence, following an earlier refusal by a single judge. The opinion notes that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies and that reporting restrictions protecting the identity of the Victim apply for the Victim's lifetime unless formally lifted or waived under the Act.

On 13 April 2022 the Appellant was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court of an offence of assault of a child under 13 by penetration contrary to section 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Sentence for that offence was adjourned pending anticipated additional charges. On 21 September 2022 the Appellant pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court to three offences of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

On 8 November 2022 the trial judge, Judge Wiggin, sentenced the Appellant for all matters together. For the assault by penetration the Appellant received an extended determinate sentence of 12 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 8 years' custody and a 4-year extended licence period. Concurrent custodial sentences of 12 months, 6 months and 6 months were imposed in respect of the indecent images offences. Appropriate ancillary orders were made.

The Appellant did not appeal at the time. Acting in person, he lodged grounds of appeal on 1 May 2024, approximately 18 months after sentence, thereby seeking an extension of time of 506 days to apply for leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether the proposed appeal has any arguable merit such that leave to appeal should be granted.
3. Application of the statutory reporting restriction under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to prevent identification of the Victim.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant explained the delay by saying his original solicitor failed to respond within the 28-day limit and directed him to contact the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) instead of pursuing an appeal; he asserted that he only received a CCRC-related communication two days before lodging the present appeal, despite the report purportedly being completed much earlier.
• On the merits, the Appellant contended that the trial judge imposed an overly harsh sentence. He continued to deny the contact offence and emphasised that the alleged offence occurred more than 12 years prior to conviction and was not reported until he was in custody for unrelated matters.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing party's (e.g., prosecution's) specific submissions on the extension application or on the merits beyond the sentencing judge's findings and the content of the pre-sentence report.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in two linked stages: (1) assessment of the explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal and whether there was a sufficient reason to grant a 506-day extension of time; and (2) consideration of the merits of the proposed appeal to determine whether it had any arguable prospect of success.

On delay: the court recorded the Appellant's account that his solicitor had not complied with the 28-day limit and had directed him to the CCRC, and that he had only recently received material said to have been prepared earlier. The court expressed skepticism about that account, noting in particular that an application to the CCRC would not have been available until the domestic appeal remedies were exhausted. The court stated it was "far from persuaded" that there was any good reason for the long delay.

Despite doubts about the explanation for delay, the court followed the single judge's approach of considering the merits of the proposed appeal. The opinion summarised the underlying facts relied upon at trial: the assault by penetration of the Victim (then aged about 4–6) while the Victim was in the Appellant's care, the Appellant's denials at interview and at trial, and later admissions in relation to separate indecent image offending discovered in 2021.

The court recited the sentencing judge's reasoning in detail and accepted the judge's categorisation and application of the Sentencing Council guideline. The trial judge had found the offence to be category 3A with level 3 harm (extreme psychological harm) and level A culpability (abuse of trust). The guideline range for a category 3A offence was 4–9 years with a 6-year starting point. Aggravating factors identified by the sentencing judge included the presence of another child (the Appellant's son) at the scene, the Appellant's extensive and relevant previous convictions for indecent images offences, and the fact that those indecent images offences in 2021 had been committed while the Appellant was on bail for the Crown Court matter.

The court also noted the content of the pre-sentence report: logistical difficulties had limited direct interview opportunities, but the probation officer had access to extensive records and concluded that the Appellant presented a high risk of serious harm to children, including risk of contact offences such as digital penetration of pre-pubescent children. The probation assessment was that the Appellant's risk of reoffending was moderate to high, and that prior interventions had been ineffective in preventing his persistence in accessing child sexual material.

Given those findings, the sentencing judge concluded that the Appellant met the statutory definition of "dangerousness" and that an extended determinate sentence was required to protect the public. The court under review found no arguable merit in the Appellant's contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, observing that the sentencing judge had been entitled to the findings she made and to select an extended determinate sentence rather than a simple determinate sentence in light of the assessed risk.

On that basis the court concluded that the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit. Because the extension of time related to an application that the court regarded as devoid of arguable grounds, the court refused both leave to appeal and the requested extension of time.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court refused the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and refused leave to appeal against sentence.

Implications:

• The Appellant's sentence as imposed by the trial judge (an extended determinate sentence of 12 years in total, comprising 8 years' custody and a 4-year extended licence period, together with concurrent sentences for the indecent images offences) remains in effect.
• The court found no arguable merit in the proposed grounds of appeal: the sentencing judge's use of the Sentencing Council guideline, her assessment of harm and culpability, her consideration of aggravating factors (including previous convictions and presence of another child), and her conclusion that an extended sentence was required were all upheld as within proper judicial discretion.
• The statutory reporting restriction protecting the identity of the Victim remains in force for the Victim's lifetime unless formally lifted or waived in accordance with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
• The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent; it applies existing statutory provisions and guideline principles to the facts of this case and reaches a conclusion on the extension and the absence of arguable appeal grounds.

All personal names, identifying particulars and locations in this summary have been anonymized in accordance with the instructions accompanying the source opinion.