James, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 October 2025 in the Crown Court at The City the Appellant was convicted after trial of one count of sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and acquitted of several other offences relating to the same child (referred to in the judgment as "C"). The relevant offending occurred from about July 2019 when C, aged either 14 or 15, entered into a relationship with the Appellant, who was then 18. The Appellant lived for periods at C's grandmother's house, initially without the homeowner's knowledge, during which consensual sexual intercourse occurred. C later made allegations in April 2022 and the Appellant was arrested and interviewed; he maintained that the sexual contact was consensual and that he believed C to be 17. The Appellant was sentenced on 9 October 2025 to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment and appealed the sentence with leave of the Single Judge. No pre-sentence report had been obtained at sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding a "significant degree of planning" sufficient to place the offence in culpability category A (making it a category 1A offence) rather than category 1B.
2. Whether a pre-sentence report should have been obtained under section 30(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 before imposing sentence.
3. Whether the court should correct errors relating to the statutory surcharge and the period of notification under section 80 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 consequent upon any variation of sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was wrong to find a "significant degree of planning" by the Appellant; the arrangements enabling the Appellant to live at the grandmother's address were "positively orchestrated" by C and therefore the planning should not be attributed to the Appellant.
• While collusion by the victim cannot be mitigation, it is relevant to the assessment of culpability and therefore to categorisation under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• The relationship was effectively a consensual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship between near-in-age young people and a sentence of 3½ years' custody was manifestly excessive; a lower category and lower sentence were appropriate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the offence fell in harm category 1 (penetrative sexual activity) but analysed whether the single culpability A factor identified by the sentencing judge—"a significant degree of planning"—was made out. Relying on the guidance in R v Dogra that the question of significant planning is fact-specific and that only particular features (acting with others, drugging, prior violence, burglary, motive or hostility) typically indicate raised culpability, the court examined the factual matrix: the parties considered themselves in a relationship; the Appellant had been made to leave his family home and needed somewhere to live; the Appellant and C together arranged for him to live at the grandmother's house (initially without the householder's knowledge). The court concluded that those facts did not reach the level of "significant planning" required for culpability A. The sentencing judge therefore erred in categorisation. The court recategorised the offence as 1B (starting point 12 months, range up to 2 years) and, after balancing the relevant mitigation (Appellant's youth at the time of offending, previous good character, delay between offending and conviction, and the circumstances of the living arrangements) determined an appropriate sentence would have been 16 months' imprisonment. Given time already served, immediate or near-immediate release was likely, so suspension analysis was unnecessary. The court also addressed procedural and ancillary matters: it considered that a pre-sentence report should have been obtained but, in light of allowing the appeal and its outcome, declined to obtain one itself; it adjusted the period of notification under section 80 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from life to 10 years; and it corrected the statutory surcharge, concluding it could impose the correct amount under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED (sentence varied)

Holding: The Court allowed the appeal against sentence, finding error in the sentencing judge's categorisation of the offence as 1A. The offence was recharacterised as category 1B and the appropriate sentence on that basis was determined to be 16 months' imprisonment.

Implications:

• The Appellant's custodial sentence is reduced from 3 years 6 months to 16 months; given time served, immediate or near-immediate release is likely.
• The period of notification under section 80 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is reduced to 10 years from the date of conviction rather than for life.
• The court corrected the statutory surcharge to the appropriate amount of £187 for the varied sentence.
• No new legal principle was established beyond the application of existing guidance (including R v Dogra) to the facts; the decision corrects the sentence and ancillary orders in the individual case.