Judgment Summary — Judge [Last Name]

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 March 2025 at the Crown Court at The City the Appellant (then aged 49) was sentenced after conviction for two offences of sexual activity with a child contrary to s.9(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003. Count 1 attracted 3 years' imprisonment; Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment concurrent. With leave of a single judge the Appellant appealed on the basis that the overall sentence of 3 years was manifestly excessive.

The offending occurred on 7 June 2023, shortly before the Complainant's 13th birthday. The Appellant, who was in a position of trust towards the Complainant and her two younger half-siblings, rubbed the Complainant's vagina (alleged to be over clothing) and rubbed himself against her while lying in her bed. The Complainant disclosed the matters to a school safeguarding officer, police attended the family home and found multiple CCTV cameras including in the shared bedroom. The family unit subsequently split up and the Complainant no longer lives with her siblings.

The Appellant had no previous convictions (a 2001 caution for handling stolen goods was recorded) and was treated as of effective good character for sentencing purposes. The trial judge imposed immediate custody and also imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied or misconstrued the sentencing guideline's "starting point" and thereby erred in weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors (including alleged double-counting).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney Becker submitted the judge indicated departure from the guideline range was appropriate due to aggravating factors but did not identify the upward starting point or the reduction applied for the Appellant's effective good character.
• It was submitted there was no reason to depart from the maximum figure in the guideline category range; some aggravating features were already encompassed within culpability category A, resulting in double-counting and overlap.
• While some increase from the guideline starting point (6 months) was accepted, there was no basis to elevate the starting point beyond 3 years or to impose an ultimate sentence of 3 years; the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing exercise by reference to the applicable guideline. It noted the following key points from the sentencing judge's approach and the appellate assessment:

• The lead offence was placed in category 3A and the guideline starting point was 6 months' imprisonment, producing a category range from a high‑level community order to 3 years' imprisonment.
• The sentencing judge classified culpability as category A due to abuse of trust, grooming behaviour and significant age disparity, but observed the need to avoid double-counting where that disparity reflected the offence itself.
• The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors (severe psychological harm to the Complainant, location of offending in her bed, time of offending, two offences and CCTV evidence) and mitigating factors (effective good character and difficult childhood), and concluded immediate custody was necessary, stating the least sentence for the lead offence was 3 years' imprisonment.
• The appellate court addressed confusion over the phrase "starting point," explaining that the true starting point is the guideline figure. It found the sentencing judge had in fact taken the correct guideline starting point (6 months), had not made an upward adjustment prior to considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and that a later reference to reducing his "starting point" meant reducing the provisional figure reached after aggravating factors but before mitigation.
• Although the sentencing judge had observed it might be appropriate to move outside the guideline range, the appellate court found he did not impose a sentence beyond the guideline range; he imposed a sentence at the top of the range (3 years).
• The critical appellate question became whether the sentencing judge erred in the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors and/or in deciding to impose a sentence at the top of the category range. The appellate court accepted the seriousness of the offending and the presence of significant aggravating factors, but also accepted overlap among some culpability factors and identified limited mitigation.
• Having stood back and considered the overall assessment, the appellate court concluded there was no sufficient reason to impose a sentence at the top of the category range and that the term should not exceed 2 years; immediate custody remained appropriate.

Holding and Implications

Appeal allowed in part: the sentence for the lead offence is reduced from 3 years' imprisonment to 2 years' imprisonment.

Consequences: The Appellant's custodial term for the lead offence is reduced to 2 years; the requirement for immediate imprisonment remains. The opinion records no establishment of new precedent beyond the application of existing sentencing principles and corrections as to the use of "starting point" terminology.