Dismore, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought by the Appellant following convictions for 26 offences spanning 2015 to 2023, including attempted murder at trials held at The City Crown Court. On 8 January 2025 the Appellant was sentenced by Judge Stead to an extended sentence of 43 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (38 years custody and a 5-year extended licence). Leave to appeal was granted by a single judge. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restrictions apply to publication concerning the victims.

In summary, between 2015 and 2023 the Appellant sexually abused and manipulated nine young girls aged between 13 and 15, using false online identities to befriend them, coerce them into sexual activity and obtain indecent images. The offending culminated in an attempted murder of Victim 9 (referred to in the trial as MG) on 22 June 2023, when the Appellant stabbed her in the street with a knife purchased that day. The Appellant was aged 24 at sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to the Appellant's age, lack of previous convictions and the principle of totality.
2. Whether the learned judge was entitled to exceed the upper limit of the category range for a category 2A attempted murder offence under the Sentencing Guideline for Attempted Murder.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney Abrahams accepted the offending was exceptionally serious and that attempted murder was correctly treated as the lead offence but submitted the judge went too far outside the upper range for a category 2A attempted murder, given the Appellant's age, lack of previous convictions and the totality of offending; the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.
• No criticism was made of the dangerousness finding or the imposition of a 5-year extended licence period.

Respondent's Arguments

• Attorney Dodds submitted the sentence was justified given the extreme circumstances of the offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the attempted murder should be categorised as category 2A under the Sentencing Guideline for Attempted Murder, with a starting point of 30 years and a category range of 25–35 years (very high culpability because the offence involved attempted murder of a child motivated by sexual conduct; harm assessed as category 2). The learned judge had treated the attempted murder as the lead offence and imposed 43 years (38 years custody + 5 years extension), applying the dangerousness provisions and imposing ancillary orders (notification for life, deprivation order, lifelong restraining orders for the nine victims, and a sexual harm prevention order).

The court held that the cumulative aggravating effect of the extensive sexual offending and the facts of the attempted murder justified going beyond the category range. The Appellant's conduct over an eight-year period from age 14—creating false identities, coercing children aged 13–15 into sexual activity, sharing and threatening to share indecent images, stalking, and escalating to violent attempted murder—meant there was little mitigation. The absence of previous convictions was given little weight given the prolonged period of offending. Considering totality, the court concluded the sentence fell within the range of sentences available and that a life sentence would also have been justifiable.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence of an extended sentence totalling 43 years (38 years custodial term and a 5-year extended licence) and the ancillary orders imposed by Judge Stead were upheld. The court noted a correction concerning the statutory maximum for the stalking offences (counts 2 and 5 on the first indictment) — they carry a 5-year maximum in part because they occurred before 3 April 2017 — but this had no effect on the sentences imposed for those counts. The decision confirms that in particularly serious cases of prolonged sexual offending culminating in very grave violence the court may lawfully impose sentences exceeding typical totals for multiple sexual offences; no new legal principle beyond the application of existing guidance was established.