Anonymised Summary of Judicial Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence (the appeal having been refused by a single judge). The Court applying the reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 anonymised the victim and applicant information; this summary uses the neutral label "Appellant" for the person who sought leave to appeal and "Complainant 1" and "Complainant 2" for the two victims.

On 22 October 2024, in the Central Criminal Court (referred to below as "the Court"), the Appellant (then aged 58) was sentenced after pleading guilty to a set of offences involving indecent images of children under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (described in the opinion as "the images offences"). The Court imposed an eight month custodial sentence for the most serious images offence (Category A images) and concurrent, lower terms for the remaining images offences.

The Appellant was also convicted after trial of multiple sexual offences against two sisters who are the complainants in the prosecution: Complainant 1 (C1) and Complainant 2 (C2). The offences against Complainant 1 comprised ten counts, including oral rape, multiple-incident oral rapes, attempted rape, multiple counts of sexual assault and assault by penetration. Sentences imposed included 11 years on one count, an extended determinate sentence with a 21 year custodial term and a five year extended licence on another count (overall described as a 26 year extended determinate sentence), eight years on an attempted rape count, multiple three- and seven-year terms on other counts, and a 12 month term on a further count. The offences against Complainant 2 comprised three counts of sexual assault of a child under 13, each carrying concurrent three year terms. All custodial sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The offending occurred between 2016 and 2022. The Appellant was a long-standing family friend of the complainants' parents and had opportunities to be with the girls unattended; the Court found grooming behaviour, frequent contact (including overnight stays and collections from school), giving of gifts and significant expenditure on the children. The abuse of Complainant 1 began when she was approximately 7 or 8 and continued until about age 12, after which the Appellant began to abuse Complainant 2. The matters came to light in June-July 2023 when Complainant 2 disclosed to peers and a teacher, leading to police interviews of both complainants and a search of the Appellant's home. The search disclosed a memory stick containing a large quantity of indecent still and moving images of children (260 Category A, 131 Category B and 683 Category C images) depicting children aged approximately 4 to 12, and a small number of sexually explicit fake images.

The Appellant had one historical conviction (2010) for persistently soliciting a woman for prostitution from a motor vehicle. Victim Personal Statements and a pre-sentence report were before the sentencing judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge's determination that the Appellant was "dangerous" (i.e. posed a significant risk of the commission of serious specified offences) was one at which no reasonable judge could arrive.
2. Whether, in light of the Appellant's age and limited previous convictions, the custodial term (described by the sentencing judge as a 21 year custodial term forming part of an extended determinate sentence of 26 years with a five year extended licence) was longer than necessary and therefore excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (through counsel, Attorney Montgomery) argued the dangerousness finding was not one that a reasonable judge could have reached, emphasising the Appellant's age and the absence of relevant previous convictions.
• The Appellant additionally argued that the circumstances of the offending were specific to his relationship with a particular family and therefore unlikely to be repeated; on that basis, the 21 year custodial term was submitted to be excessive given his age and limited criminal record.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Crown's or respondent's submissions in relation to these proposed grounds beyond the sentencing judge's findings and the material in the pre-sentence report which supported the judge's conclusions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded from the sentencing judge's factual findings, the content of the pre-sentence report, and the sentencing exercise already undertaken.

1. Reporting restriction: The Court applied the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to prevent publication of matters likely to identify the complainants as victims; anonymity was imposed for life.

2. Assessment of dangerousness: The Court reviewed the pre-sentence report which described grooming behaviour, a sustained period of offending, the Appellant's ongoing denial of the sexual offending against the complainants (despite admitting the images offences), the Appellant's admission of accessing child abuse images on the dark web, and the author's conclusion that the Appellant presented a "High Risk of Serious harm" to children. That assessment included an evaluation that the Appellant had the criminal capacities and attitudes to subject young children to serious sexual abuse, that he would have continued to offend but for the complainants' disclosures, and that his offence-supportive attitudes remained active.

The Court identified multiple aggravating culpability factors which the sentencing judge had found: significant planning, grooming of the victims, very significant abuse of trust (given the Appellant's role as a family friend and perceived grandfather figure), the particular vulnerability of Complainant 1 (isolated in the Appellant's home), multiple incidents including repeated offences, and episodes where the Appellant ejaculated. The judge classified the most serious offences (counts 1 and 2) as involving Category 2 harm and multiple Culpability A factors. Counts relating to other incidents were classified as Category 2A and 2A with appropriate starting points under the relevant sentencing guidelines.

Having reviewed these matters, the Court concluded that the combined effect of the pre-sentence report, the sustained and targeted nature of the offending, the Appellant's entrenched sexual interest in young females (under 13), and his continuing denial of those allegations provided a sound basis for the sentencing judge's conclusion that the Appellant posed a significant risk of serious specified offending in the future. The Court acknowledged the judge had taken the Appellant's lack of relevant prior convictions and age into account, but held that those factors did not undermine the dangerousness finding in light of the overall evidence.

3. Sentencing exercise and totality: The Court analysed the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation and starting points: starting points of 13 years (range up to 17) for counts 1-3, 4 years (range up to 7) for certain sexual assault counts classified 2A, and 11 years (range up to 16) for other 2A offences (counts 6 and 7). The judge treated count 2 as the lead offence and adjusted the sentence upward within the applicable range to reflect the overall nature and extent of the offending, including multiple serious sexual offences and a second victim. The judge then considered totality and determined that a determinate custodial term of 21 years was the least period that could be imposed to address the risk posed, and concluded that a determinate sentence alone would not adequately protect the public; accordingly an extended licence period of five years was added.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly and carefully identified where the respective offending fell within the sentencing guidelines, had validly increased the starting point to take account of the cumulative seriousness of the offending, and had properly applied totality adjustments. The Court therefore concluded that the custodial term and extended licence period were in line with the sentencing guidelines and constituted a just and proportionate response to the offences and the risk posed by the Appellant.

4. Disposition on ancillary matters: The Court also noted that, although the possibility of a loss of time order had been flagged by the single judge, the appellate Court did not make a loss of time order.

Holding and Implications

Decision: The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Immediate consequences: The sentencing judge's determinations as to dangerousness and the overall custodial period (including the extended licence period) stand. The Appellant's custodial term described by the sentencing judge — a determinate custodial term of 21 years forming part of an extended determinate sentence of 26 years including a five year extended licence — remains in place, alongside the concurrent sentences for the images offences and other counts. No loss of time order was made.

Wider implications: The opinion applies the sentencing judge's assessment and the pre-sentence report to refuse leave; it does not purport to establish any new legal precedent. The Court expressly upheld the approach taken within existing sentencing guidelines and emphasised that age and the absence of relevant prior convictions did not, on the facts of this case, undermine the dangerousness finding or render the custodial term excessive.

---

Note on anonymisation: All personal names and identifying details have been replaced with neutral labels (e.g., "Appellant", "Complainant 1", "Complainant 2", "Judge Lickley", "Judge Williams", "Attorney Montgomery", "the Court") to comply with the reporting restrictions and the anonymisation requirements applicable to this summary.