Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed, with leave granted by a single judge, against the sentence imposed on him on 10 January 2025 in the Crown Court sitting in The City for three offences to which he had pleaded guilty at a plea and trial preparation hearing on 16 December 2024, having indicated in the magistrates' court that he would plead guilty.

The three counts and the sentences imposed by the trial judge were:

• Count 1: Breach of a sexual harm prevention order (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.103(1)(a) and Sentencing Act 2020 ss.354(1)(a) & (4)) — 2 years' imprisonment.
• Count 2: Attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity — an extended sentence of 12 years (custodial term of 6 years and an extended licence of 6 years).
• Count 3: Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child — 6 months' imprisonment.

All three sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The Appellant was 36 at sentence and had a long history of child sexual offending and related breaches of statutory orders, including convictions and sentences in 2008–2009, 2015–2016, 2020 and 2022. He had previously received extended sentences and had been subject to sexual offences prevention / sexual harm prevention orders on multiple occasions; he had also breached such orders and had reoffended shortly after release on several occasions.

The present offending occurred in October 2024 while the Appellant was on licence following release in August 2024. Over six days he used a gaming console to contact and sexually communicate with someone who claimed to be a 13-year-old girl. The communications included requests for sexualised images (of feet), suggestions that the purported girl recruit a younger girl to be charged for sexual activity, and encouragements to engage in penetrative sexual activity together. The Appellant told the girl that he could not travel to meet her. He was recalled to prison until 4 August 2026.

Sentencing material before the court included an earlier pre-sentence report (2022) assessing a very high risk of serious harm to female children aged 10–15, a letter from the Appellant and a character reference from The University where he had studied prior to arrest. The trial judge applied the relevant sentencing guidelines, categorised the counts, reached a notional total sentence of 9 years (had there been a trial) and reduced that to an effective 6 years' custody because of the guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's starting point for sentence (particularly for Count 2) was too high, given that the offending was short-lived, an attempt, and that no actual child victim was shown to have been involved.
2. Whether the judge failed adequately to adjust sentence to reflect the fact that the Appellant voluntarily desisted and that no real child victim was involved.
3. Whether the judge gave insufficient credit for remorse, educational prospects and attempts at self-rehabilitation.
4. Whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient consideration to the principle of totality in the overall sentencing exercise.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point for sentence (especially for Count 2) was too high given the short-lived nature of the offending and that it was an attempt with no demonstrated actual harm.
• The judge failed to make an adequate downward adjustment to reflect that no real child was involved and that the Appellant voluntarily desisted.
• The judge gave insufficient credit for remorse, educational prospects and attempts at rehabilitation.
• The judge did not properly apply the totality principle to the overall sentencing exercise.
• The Appellant relied on the sentencing guideline passage that, where an offender voluntarily desists at an early stage, a larger reduction (potentially outside the category range) may be appropriate.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any separate, specific submissions advanced by the prosecution or respondent beyond the trial judge's sentencing reasoning and the appellate court's consideration of the issues raised on appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court (Judge Lavender) engaged in a structured analysis focused on whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, having regard to the court's obligation to ensure the total sentence reflects overall harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors and to be just and proportionate (the totality principle).

Key elements of the court's reasoning:

• The court accepted that voluntary desistance and the absence of demonstrated actual harm required a significant downward adjustment to sentence. The sentencing guideline for inciting a child to commit a sexual act expressly contemplates that where an offender voluntarily desists at an early stage a larger reduction may be appropriate, potentially taking the sentence outside the category range.
• Despite that, the Appellant's very serious and persistent history of sexual offending, repeated breaches of orders, and re-offending shortly after release were powerful aggravating factors. These features significantly outweighed the mitigation arising from desistance, remorse and educational prospects, which the court concluded carried little or no weight in this particular case.
• The court considered the trial judge's reasoning and observed that while the judge acknowledged some discount for desistance, his notional total sentence of 9 years (before plea reduction) did not sufficiently reflect the weight to be given to voluntary desistance.
• Balancing the mitigating effect of voluntary desistance and the absence of proved actual harm against the aggravating features (notably the Appellant's record and breach of orders), the appellate court concluded that a notional sentence of 7½ years would have better struck the required balance between reduction for desistance and aggravation for the Appellant's record and behaviour.
• On that basis the appellate court adjusted the sentence: the appeal was allowed in part by quashing the original sentence on Count 2 and imposing in its place an extended sentence totalling 11 years, comprising a custodial term of 5 years and an extended licence of 6 years. (The opinion does not set out further arithmetic steps such as any specific reduction for guilty plea applied by the appellate court in reaching the custodial term of 5 years.)
• The court expressly noted that no issue was taken on appeal with the judge's finding of dangerousness or with the imposition of an extended sentence in principle.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART.

Holding:

• The appellate court quashed the sentence previously imposed on Count 2 and substituted an extended sentence of 11 years in total, consisting of a custodial term of 5 years and an extended licence period of 6 years.
• The remaining sentences (Counts 1 and 3), and the fact that sentences were concurrent, were left as they were in the trial judge's order; the opinion limits its alteration to Count 2 as described.

Implications:

• The direct effect is a reduced custodial term on Count 2 (from 6 years' custody within an extended sentence of 12 years, to 5 years' custody within an extended sentence of 11 years). The licence component remains 6 years as before.
• The court's decision reflects the application of the sentencing guideline principle that voluntary desistance and absence of demonstrated harm can justify a significant reduction in sentence, but that such mitigation may be substantially outweighed by serious aggravating features — here, a pattern of serious prior offending and breaches of statutory orders.
• The opinion does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond applying established sentencing principles and the statutory and guideline framework to the facts of this case; the decision is confined to the specific balancing exercise and adjustment made on the facts as found by the trial judge and reviewed on appeal.

---

Note: All personal names, institutional names and place names in this summary have been anonymised in accordance with the instructions provided. The content reflects only the information contained in the provided opinion.