Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Christie, R. v
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court in The City before Judge Mallett and a jury and, on 13 November 2024, was convicted of 14 counts of indecent assault on a male contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and two counts of rape contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 30 January 2025 the Appellant, then aged 36, was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment (total). The offences were historical and occurred when the Appellant was aged between about 10/11 and 17 and the Complainant was aged between about 6/7 and 13/14. Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied to the proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in adopting a starting point that was too high, insufficiently reflecting the principles in R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 when sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child.
- Whether the sentence failed adequately to reflect mitigating factors and the assessment of future risk.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was too high and did not give sufficient weight to the principles in R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 concerning sentencing adults for offences committed as children.
- The sentence did not adequately reflect mitigating factors, including the Appellant's subsequent conduct, family circumstances and the assessed low future risk.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 |
Requires sentencers, when sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child, to consider what sentence would have been passed on a child of the age at the time of offending and to follow the Children guideline (section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code), recognising reduced culpability of children. |
The sentencing judge applied the Ahmed principles, used the Children guideline ranges (broadly half to two thirds of the adult sentence for ages 15–17), adjusted sentences for the Appellant's age at the time of each offence, and gave advance notice of her approach to counsel by sharing a draft sentencing note. |
| Forbes |
Mentioned in Ahmed for drawing a distinction between cases where no custody would have been available and those where some custody would have been available. |
The court rejected the distinction drawn in Forbes as a basis for diminishing the relevance of a child's reduced culpability merely because some form of custodial disposal might have been available at the time of offending. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the sentencing exercise undertaken by Judge Mallett, noting the complexity of sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child. It observed that the judge was aware of and followed the principles in R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 and relevant Sentencing Council guidance (Children guideline; Sentencing children and young people; Sexual offences – Sentencing children and young people). The judge considered the Appellant's age at the time of each offence and reduced sentences accordingly (reductions stated as two thirds for ages 10–12, one half for 13–14, and one third when older), relied on a detailed pre-sentence report, and took into account the victim impact statement describing significant and likely life-long psychological harm to the Complainant. The judge also considered mitigation including the Appellant's subsequent blameless life, family circumstances, and a low future risk assessment. The appellate court found that the sentencing judge had been conspicuously careful, had sought to give parties an advance view of her approach, and had properly applied the applicable legal principles without material error.
Holding and Implications
LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED
The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The direct effect is that the sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment stands. The court concluded that, while the sentence was severe, it was not arguably excessive. The opinion does not purport to establish a new principle beyond the application of Ahmed and existing Sentencing Council guidance.
Click here to read the full judgment