Anonymized Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal against sentence following conviction after a Crown Court trial. The Appellant, then aged 33 at trial, was convicted on 17 October 2024 of multiple sexual offences against a person referred to in the judgment as "Victim". The offences occurred between 2010 and 2013 when the Victim was aged 13–15, and involved numerous incidents over that period. The Appellant founded a cheerleading group which the Victim joined in 2010; the Appellant groomed the Victim and abused a position of trust.

The Appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child (section 9, Sexual Offences Act 2003) and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (section 10). She was acquitted of one count. On 4 December 2024 she was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on lead counts (concurrent) and concurrent four-year sentences on other counts. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a Restraining Order were also made for ten years. The Appellant appeals against sentence with leave of the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to treat the Appellant's diagnosed ADHD and related neurological diversity as reducing culpability under the relevant guideline.
3. Whether the judge failed to afford adequate credit for the significant delay to trial for which the Appellant was not responsible.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant accepted multiple offences over a significant period but argued the sentence extended to the top of, and beyond, the guideline range without proper justification.
• It was submitted that the Appellant's youth and immaturity at the time, and longstanding diagnosis of ADHD, should have mitigated culpability; the sentencing judge did not expressly reduce culpability for neurological diversity as required by the relevant guideline.
• The Appellant argued she should have received greater credit for the significant delay to trial, which was not her fault, and that the impact of incarceration on her young child was insufficiently considered.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution identified the prolonged period of offending and the severe psychological harm to the Victim as aggravating factors.
• The prosecution emphasised grooming, planning and abuse of trust that elevated culpability.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the statutory anonymity protections for Victims of sexual offences and proceeded to consider sentencing principles. The judge below had identified counts 3 and 4 as lead offences, categorised as category 1 harm and culpability A, with significant planning, grooming and prolonged offending.

The appellate court reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors: the prolonged period of offending and severe psychological harm to the Victim were aggravating; the Appellant's relative youth and immaturity at the time were mitigating. The pre-sentence report and Victim Personal Statement supported the finding of severe psychological harm, including self-harm and long-term counselling for the Victim.

The court examined the Appellant's argument about ADHD and the guidelines for offenders with mental, developmental or neurological disorders. Noting the guideline requires the sentencer to state whether culpability is reduced for such matters, the sentencing judge made no such reduction; the appellate court inferred the judge considered there was no reduction. The pre-sentence report described planning and grooming inconsistent with impulsive offending; while ADHD may have increased disinhibition, the court found no reason to treat it as significantly mitigating culpability.

On delay, the court acknowledged adverse effects on the Appellant but also noted the delay exacerbated harm to the Victim. The sentencing judge's assessment of remorse, insight and overall criminality—having sat through the trial—was given weight. The court concluded the judge was entitled to elevate the sentence beyond the guideline range to reflect overall criminality and to satisfy totality by imposing concurrent sentences.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

Consequences: The ten-year custodial sentence on the lead counts (with concurrent four-year sentences on other counts), together with the ten-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and Restraining Order, remain in force. The court indicated that, although the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive after accounting for the identified mitigation. The opinion does not purport to establish new legal precedent beyond the application of established sentencing principles to the facts of this case.