Factual and Procedural Background
On 18 December 2025 the Appellant was sentenced in The Court to a total of 20 months' immediate imprisonment following committal for sentence after entering guilty pleas to multiple counts concerning indecent and prohibited images of children, extreme pornography and sending indecent communications. Leave to appeal was granted on grounds that the sentencing judge may have erred in principle in declining to suspend the term and in failing to notify defence counsel of an intention to make adverse findings on the evidence.
The offending was uncovered after a search of the Appellant's home in The City on 5 June 2024. Forensic examination of seized devices revealed thousands of indecent images across categories A, B and C, prohibited images and extreme pornographic images (including images involving animals), with some category A material depicting very young children and serious sexual violence. The devices also showed sexually explicit online communications between the Appellant and an adult user identified in the record by the name "Ellie" (here anonymised as User A), in which the Appellant graphically described sexual acts involving children.
The Appellant had an extensive employment history including over a decade in administrative roles at The Hospital and later work in IT support for Company B. He lived with his parents and provided daily care to his father after medical problems in 2023.
A detailed pre-sentence report dated 4 December 2025 recorded persistent remorse, developing insight into victim harm, voluntary engagement with courses (Stop It Now) and an intention to undertake further accredited work (Inform Plus). Actuarial risk tools produced an OGRS3 score of 7% (low risk of general reoffending), an RSR score indicating medium risk of serious harm, low risk of contact sexual offending and medium risk of further image-based offending. The report recommended suitability for a community sentence with requirements including rehabilitation activity and unpaid work.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in declining to suspend the custodial sentence despite mitigation and rehabilitative progress documented in the pre-sentence report.
- Whether the sentencing process was procedurally unfair because the judge made material adverse findings about rehabilitation and remorse without giving defence counsel prior notice or an opportunity to address those concerns.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation and documented rehabilitative steps, such that suspension of the inevitable custodial sentence should have been considered.
- The Appellant had taken voluntary steps to address his behaviour, posed no imminent risk of contact offending, had complied on bail for 20 months and custody would cause significant harm to his family—thus there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
- Defence counsel cited authorities (R v Ramos [2022] EWCA Crim 425 and R v Evans [2022] EWCA Crim 1390) emphasising the public interest in reducing future offending through rehabilitation, particularly in image offending cases.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ramos [2022] EWCA Crim 425 |
Emphasis on the public interest in reducing future offending through rehabilitation, particularly in image offending cases. |
Cited by defence at sentence; the Court noted this authority supports consideration of rehabilitation and agreed the sentencing judge had insufficiently engaged with such authorities. |
| R v Evans [2022] EWCA Crim 1390 |
Emphasis on the public interest in reducing future offending through rehabilitation, particularly in image offending cases. |
Cited by defence at sentence; the Court treated this as part of the jurisprudence stressing rehabilitation's role and considered the sentencing judge's treatment of rehabilitative evidence against that background. |
| R v Newton (Robert John) (1983) 77 Cr App R 13 |
Where there are sharp factual divergences relevant to sentence, if the court declines to hear evidence it must resolve in favour of the defendant when there is a substantial conflict. |
Relied on to distinguish evaluative judicial assessments of remorse/rehabilitation from disputes of fact; the Court explained that Newton applies where there is a substantial factual conflict requiring a decision favouring the defendant if evidence is not heard. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate judge analysed the sentencing judge's approach to the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline (effective 1 September 2025) and the four listed factors indicating when suspension may be appropriate: (1) realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community; (2) offender does not present high risk of reoffending or serious harm; (3) strong personal mitigation; (4) significant harmful impact on others of immediate custody.
The Court reviewed the pre-sentence report's detailed passages documenting remorse, insight and voluntary rehabilitative engagement, as well as actuarial risk scores and the absence of repeat offending for 20 months. It concluded that the sentencing judge's stated view that there was "no objective evidence" of rehabilitation prospects was unsustainable in light of that material.
The Court addressed procedural fairness: it agreed the sentencing judge made material adverse findings about rehabilitation and remorse without notifying defence counsel beforehand, but held that such evaluative assessments (weight or credibility of mitigation) are normally within the judge's evaluative function and do not amount to procedural irregularity requiring advance warning. The Court contrasted this with situations of sharp factual dispute where Newton applies.
The Court emphasised that a sentencing judge is not bound to accept recommendations in a pre-sentence report, but must apply the guideline factors properly. Where the judge appears to have given no weight to cogent mitigation—for example by requiring completed accredited treatment as the only form of acceptable rehabilitation—an appeal may succeed for error of principle. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that, notwithstanding the gravity of the offending and the custody threshold, the totality of mitigation (first conviction, remorse, voluntary rehabilitative steps, low risk indicators, employment and caring responsibilities) meant immediate custody was not the only appropriate response.
Holding and Implications
The appeal succeeds.
Disposition: The Court quashed the order of immediate custody and substituted a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months with two requirements: a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 30 days incorporating the Maps For Change programme and 120 hours' unpaid work in the community. Statutory notification requirements and the sexual harm prevention order (10 years) remain in place, together with forfeiture and destruction orders and the victim surcharge. The Court also noted the Appellant had spent time in custody already, which it took into account in fixing requirements.
Implications: The direct effect is to replace immediate custody with a suspended custodial sentence subject to specified requirements and to preserve ancillary orders. The opinion focuses on application of existing sentencing guidelines and authorities; it does not purport to introduce a new legal principle beyond the Court's application of those authorities to the facts of this case.