Hopper, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Reporting restrictions apply to this matter; the victim is not named in the judgment. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence after leave was refused by a single judge. On 12 May 2025, the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at The City to three counts of sexual activity with a child (counts 3–5) and one count of possession of indecent photographs of a child (count 8) on the written basis that sexual contact was consensual. The victim was 15 years old at the time; the Appellant was 32. The sexual offences occurred at the Appellant's home on 17 February 2025, 5 March 2025 and 9 March 2025; police removed the victim after the first incident and later the victim disclosed the offences. The Appellant's phone contained three indecent photographs of the victim. The Appellant had earlier convictions from 2012 but was sentenced as a person of good character. On 4 August 2025 the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences: six years' imprisonment on count 3, four years on counts 4 and 5, and four weeks on count 8, yielding an effective total sentence of six years' imprisonment; ancillary orders were made. Pre-sentence and psychological reports recorded that the Appellant has a low IQ and a global learning disability, with difficulties in verbal comprehension and social cue interpretation; the pre-sentence report assessed him as posing a high risk of serious harm to children.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted (renewed application) following refusal by the single judge.
2. Whether the notional sentence after trial was excessive.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the Appellant's learning disability did not reduce his culpability.
4. Whether the Appellant's diagnosis of a global learning disability was properly reflected in the overall sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The notional sentence after trial was too high.
• The sentencing judge erred in finding that the Appellant's learning disability did not reduce his culpability.
• The Appellant's global learning disability was not adequately reflected in the overall sentence; his difficulties in interpreting social cues and interpersonal interactions impaired his ability to understand the victim's intentions and emotions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the matter afresh and agreed with the single judge. The sentencing judge had placed each sexual activity count in category 1A and culpability A because of the victim's vulnerability, the significant age disparity, and an abuse of trust. The offences were in harm category 1 due to penetrative activity, giving a starting point of five years (range four to ten) for a single offence. The sentencing judge reduced the notional sentence from the five-year starting point to four years to reflect the Appellant's learning disability concerns, then selected count 3 as the lead offence and uplifted the notional sentence to eight years to reflect the totality of offending; after 25% credit for guilty pleas the imposed concurrent sentences produced an effective six-year term.

The court considered the Appellant's submissions that his learning disability affected his perception of the victim and that this should reduce culpability, but found no evidential connection between the impairment and the offending conduct. The court referred to the guideline on sentencing offenders with mental, developmental or neurological impairments, stating that a reduction in culpability requires a sufficient connection between impairment and offending. The court observed that the offending did not depend on nuanced social perception and that the Appellant was aware of the seriousness of his actions when the police had attended and removed the victim. On that basis the court found the sentence was within the appropriate range and not arguably manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. The consequence is that the original sentencing order (effective six years' imprisonment with ancillary orders) stands. The court indicated that no new precedent was established by this decision; its reasoning applied existing sentencing guidance regarding reductions for offenders with mental or developmental disorders and the requirement of a sufficient causal connection between impairment and offending.