Campbell, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on 19 December 2023 to 22 sexual offences involving children. On 29 February 2024 Judge Pierpoint sentenced the Appellant to an extended sentence of 14 years' imprisonment (nine years' custodial term plus five years on extended licence). The Notice of Appeal dated 3 February 2025 was 305 days out of time; the Appellant renews his application for leave to appeal and an extension of time following refusal by the single judge. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restrictions on publication of identifying material for victims applied.

The offending occurred over a period of just under a week in July 2023. The Appellant, who lived in The City, loitered in the vicinity of a housing-estate subway in The City and targeted young boys playing there. He withdrew large amounts of cash while in The City and used cash to groom and entice children. The conduct included asking children to strike or bite him for his sexual gratification, causing children to urinate into a bottle which he kept, pulling down children’s pants to view genitals, taking photographs of exposed buttocks and penises, performing oral sexual acts on children (including partial anal contact described as licking between the middle line of the anus), and causing some children to watch others being sexually abused. The victims were young boys (Victim 1, aged 8; Victim 2, aged 6; Victim 3, aged 7; Victim 4, aged 9). The Appellant also possessed and took indecent photographs of the children involved.

The impact on the victims and their families was described as devastating, with families traumatised and children exhibiting fear and loss of confidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against sentence.
2. Whether an extension of time for bringing the appeal should be granted given the 305-day delay.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to take sufficient account of the Appellant's mitigation (notably his role as carer for his bed-bound wife and his own health issues) such as to render the sentence excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant asserted delay in filing the notice of appeal was due to only learning of his right of appeal shortly before filing and to a dropped post-hearing video-link conference with his barrister, preventing further instructions.
• The Appellant relied on mitigation including his age (60), his role as primary carer for his bed-bound wife who is deteriorating, and his own deteriorating physical and mental health (including post-perfusion syndrome and mental health difficulties).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's or Crown's submissions on the application.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Martin Spencer accepted the Appellant's explanation for the delay (late awareness of appeal rights and aborted post-hearing communication with his barrister) and that medical problems likely contributed. However, he concluded that the question of extending time depended on the substantive merits of the appeal.

On the merits, the court reviewed the factual matrix, the nature and gravity of the offending, the ages of the victims, and the sentencing exercise undertaken by Judge Pierpoint. The court found the offending to be deliberate, pre-planned and predatory, involving grooming with cash, multiple intrusive sexual acts, photographic evidence of exposed genitals and humiliating conduct, and causing significant harm to young children and their families.

The court analysed the Appellant's mitigation submissions and concluded they did not undermine the appropriateness of the sentence. The sentencing judge's remarks were described as exemplary: assessments of harm and culpability by reference to the sentencing guidelines were unimpeachable; appropriate consideration was given to totality and mitigation; the judge was justified in assessing the Appellant as dangerous and in imposing an extended sentence. The custodial element was not excessive and could have been longer in many judges' view.

On that basis the court determined there was no real prospect of success on appeal and that the merits did not support an extension of time.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED

The court refused the application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time. The direct consequence is that the Appellant's renewed application to appeal against sentence is dismissed and the sentences as imposed by Judge Pierpoint stand. The opinion records no establishment of novel legal principle or binding precedent beyond application of established sentencing principles and the exercise of appellate review on merits and extension-of-time considerations.