Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a reference by the Attorney General under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 challenging the sentence imposed by Judge Gumsley in the Crown Court at The City on 23 December 2025. The Defendant pleaded guilty at the PTPH to two counts of sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (counts 1–2) and two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 10 (counts 3–4). The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of 33 months' imprisonment on each count after allowing a 25% reduction for guilty pleas. The conduct occurred between June and December 2012 when the Defendant was 19 and the Victim was 15; it included in-person sexual activity, coercion to produce sexual images, penetration with fingers and penis, ejaculation inside the Victim, and transmission of herpes. The Defendant had previous relevant cautions and a later conviction (2013–2014) resulting in a 20-month sentence. The Attorney General seeks leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 33 months' imprisonment concurrent on each of counts 1–4 was unduly lenient.
2. Whether the Recorder was correct to categorise each offence as falling within category 1A (high harm due to grooming) and culpability A.
3. What notional total sentence was appropriate before mitigation, and what adjustments for youth, remorse/reform, previous sentence (totality), delay and plea were appropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney Przybylska (on behalf of the Attorney General)

• The Recorder under-weighted aggravating features (severe psychological harm, transmission of an incurable disease, ejaculation inside the Victim) and over-weighted mitigation.
• The aggregate increase made to reflect multiple offences (from a 5-year starting point to a 6-year notional sentence) was inadequate.
• The overall reduction before allowance for plea (to 44 months) was excessive; the final outcome was unduly lenient.

Attorney Walker (on behalf of the Defendant)

• There was an unjustifiable two-year delay between charge and sentence warranting mitigation.
• The Defendant's age (19 at offending) and relative immaturity justified a substantial reduction from adult guidelines; the offender had genuine remorse and substantial rehabilitation.
• Notional sentencing and further reductions (age, good character/reform, and totality analogies such as R v Green) justified the sentence imposed; reliance also placed on authorities addressing delay reductions (R v Beattie-Milligan, R v Wright, R v Birtchnell).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Stuart-Smith delivering the approved judgment) evaluated the Recorder's categorisation, starting points and adjustments step by step. It concluded the Recorder was entitled to find grooming and therefore correctly identified a 5-year starting point for each single offence (category 1, range 4–10 years). The Court emphasised that the Recorder had to reflect the aggregate criminality of four separate offences; an increase from a 5-year starting point to only 6 years for aggregate offending was "significantly too small." The Court considered that the minimum justified aggregate notional sentence should have been increased from 5 years to 8 years to reflect multiple offences.

The Court then assessed aggravating factors identified in the text (psychological harm, infection with an incurable disease, ejaculation inside the Victim) and concluded at least a further one-year increase was justified, taking the notional sentence to 9 years before mitigation. It allowed mitigation for the Defendant's relative youth (a maximum reduction of 15%) and for genuine remorse, reform and previous good character (a further combined reduction up to 20%), producing a notional sentence of about 6 years.

The Court refused to make any further allowance for the two-year delay from charge to sentence, finding the delay had not been shown to be detrimental and had enabled evidence of reform. Applying a 25% reduction for plea to the notional figure left a minimum reasonably imposed sentence of about 4½ years if viewed in isolation. Considering totality with the Defendant's earlier 20-month sentence, the Court concluded a least aggregate sentence that could properly be imposed was 4 years consecutive to the earlier 20-month sentence, and that the Recorder's concurrent total of 33 months was materially and unduly low.

The Court therefore determined intervention was justified and proceeded to quash and substitute sentence.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court granted leave to refer, quashed the sentence of 33 months' imprisonment on each of counts 1–4 and substituted sentences of 4 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Defendant's sentence was increased by the Court of Appeal to 4 years' imprisonment concurrent on each count. The Court's analysis clarifies its approach to aggregate sentencing for multiple sexual offences involving grooming, aggravating features and mitigation for youth and remorse in the factual circumstances of this case. The opinion does not purport to establish a new general precedent beyond its application to these facts.