Lee, R.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence decided by Judge Picken. The Appellant pleaded guilty on re‑arraignment on 28 August 2025 at the Crown Court at The City to attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. On 23 October 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment and made subject to a 10‑year sexual harm prevention order.

The factual basis in the sentencing material was that, between July 2021 and August 2021, the Appellant communicated online with two fictitious profiles operated by undercover police officers ("Undercover Profile A" and "Undercover Profile B"). Over that period the Appellant expressed a sexual interest in an 11‑year‑old child, described sexual acts he wished to perform, exchanged images including a photograph of his erect penis, and arranged meetings. The Appellant was arrested on 8 September 2021 and pleaded guilty late in the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 14‑month sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether it was wrong in principle for the sentencing judge to impose immediate custody rather than a suspended sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence of 14 months was manifestly excessive.
• The judge erred in principle by imposing immediate custody rather than suspending the sentence.
• In written submissions the Appellant further contended the pre‑sentence report was flawed; the judge wrongly found no significant personal mitigation; and the judge failed to reduce sentence to reflect delay in the proceedings.
• In oral submissions the Appellant emphasised a realistic prospect of rehabilitation based on mental health conditions and an absence of further offending for about four years prior to sentence (allegedly in circumstances without probation support).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court (sitting with Judge Picken) considered all written and oral submissions and agreed with the single judge that the appeal had no merit.

On the claim of manifest excess, the court accepted the single judge's approach: the sentencing judge was entitled to rely on the pre‑sentence report and had read the psychiatric report mentioned therein. The court found immaterial the Appellant's assertion that a dis‑associative voice was insufficiently addressed in the pre‑sentence report because the psychiatric report and the judge's remarks dealt with the matter. The sentencing judge expressly balanced aggravating and mitigating features and reached a notional trial sentence of 18 months before allowing mitigation. The judge acknowledged the Appellant's mental health difficulties but was entitled to find that conditions such as ADHD and EUPD did not materially explain the offending; the psychiatric report indicated the Appellant engaged in the chats for himself and understood that his conduct was wrong and its consequences.

On delay, the court accepted the judge's view that there was no obligation to reduce sentence for the period between arrest and the Appellant first being brought before the court, particularly as the Appellant delayed changing his plea until the first day of trial.

On the contention that immediate custody was improper, the court agreed with the single judge that the sentencing judge properly applied the Imposition Guideline and assessed factors favouring and disfavouring suspension. The judge considered prospects of rehabilitation, strength of personal mitigation, likely impact on dependants, seriousness of the offence and evidence about the Appellant's likely engagement with supervision. The judge concluded there was not a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community given doubts recorded in the pre‑sentence report (including disengagement from community mental health services) and that the seriousness of the offending made immediate custody appropriate. The court held that the decision whether to suspend a sentence was within judicial discretion and that the judge was entitled to impose immediate custody on the facts of this case.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Direct effect: the sentence of 14 months' immediate imprisonment and the 10‑year sexual harm prevention order remain in force. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal principle or wider precedent beyond the application of established sentencing discretion in the circumstances described.