Palfrey, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 October 2025 the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to an offence of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 10 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (count 1). On 7 October 2025 the Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted sexual communication with a child contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 15A Sexual Offences Act 2003 (count 2). The offences arose from online communications in March 2025 with an account created by Group A as a decoy purporting to be a 13 year old (the Decoy). The Appellant was arrested on 9 March 2025 after images and chat logs were identified and devices seized. A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) dated 25 September 2025 recorded the Appellant's mental health deterioration, substance misuse at the time of offending, expressions of remorse, employment history and willingness to engage in intervention. On 7 October 2025 Judge Harrison sentenced the Appellant to 34 months' imprisonment on count 1 and eight months' imprisonment concurrent on count 2, and made a 10 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Leave to appeal was granted by the Single Judge; the Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 25 March 2026 before Judge Lewis, Judge Stacey and Judge Williams.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing Judge erred in categorising the offence and selecting a starting point under the Sentencing Guideline (specifically whether A1 rather than A2 culpability should have been applied to count 1).
2. Whether the downward adjustment for the decoy circumstances was insufficient (i.e. whether a greater reduction from the guideline range was appropriate).
3. Whether the Judge gave insufficient credit for the Appellant's remorse and mitigation (including good character and steps towards rehabilitation) such that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
4. Whether, in all the circumstances, a suspended sentence under A2 of the guideline could properly have been imposed instead of immediate custody.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The facts supported a starting point between A1 and A2 on the guideline for count 1, so a lower starting point should have been adopted.
• The downward adjustment for the decoy circumstances was insufficient and should have been larger because the absence of a real child greatly reduced harm.
• Insufficient reduction was made for genuine remorse.
• Insufficient reduction was made for the Appellant's previously good character.
• The Appellant had shown steps towards rehabilitation and these factors supported suspension of the sentence under A2.
• Supporting points: offending occurred over a short period (hours), no messages indicated an arranged meeting or intention to meet, Appellant had no prior custody, steady employment and family responsibilities, and local publicity had already been punitive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the sentencing Judge's factual findings and proceeded to analyse application of the applicable Sentencing Guideline. The Judge had assessed the intended sexual activity as involving vaginal penetration and therefore placed harm at Level 1. Culpability was assessed as category A because the Appellant lied about his age, there was a significant age disparity and sexual images were solicited. The guideline starting point for an A1 offence was identified as five years with an offence range of four to ten years. The Judge applied a "small reduction" to reflect the absence of a real child (decoy circumstances), noting the guideline permits only a limited reduction where, but for that fact, the offence would otherwise have been carried out. The Judge identified two aggravating factors (sending a photograph of his penis and offending while under the influence of drink and drugs) and several mitigating factors (no relevant previous convictions, offence out of character, difficult personal circumstances at the time, and apparent remorse). The Judge explained that, after making the small reduction for the decoy element and allowing for aggravating factors and the related offending on count 2, he had nonetheless made substantial allowance for mitigation to arrive at a notional sentence after trial of four years and three months. That notional sentence was reduced by one third for an early guilty plea to 34 months' custody. For count 2 the Judge applied the applicable guideline (A1 start 18 months, range nine months–two years), imposed 12 months reduced to eight months for plea, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal reviewed these steps and concluded the Judge's approach accurately reflected the guideline, correctly limited the reduction for decoy circumstances, properly took into account mitigation (including rehabilitation efforts recorded in the PSR) and acted within principle in concluding only immediate custody could be justified given the seriousness of the offending.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: The sentences imposed by Judge Harrison (34 months' imprisonment on count 1 and eight months concurrently on count 2) and the 10 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order were upheld. The Court did not set or announce any new legal precedent; its decision affirms that limited reduction for decoy circumstances is appropriate where, but for the absence of a real child, the offence would have been carried out, and that immediate custody may still be required despite mitigation and steps towards rehabilitation.