Approved Judgment — Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a French national studying in the UK, pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court on 15 January 2026 and was committed to the Crown Court at The City for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 12 February 2026 the Crown Court (Judge Khan) sentenced the Appellant for six offences relating to indecent images of children: for the lead offence of distributing Category A indecent images the judge imposed 28 months' imprisonment (after credit for plea), with concurrent sentences for other offences (including possession of a prohibited image and making or distributing Category A, B and C images). A Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years and a deprivation order in respect of the Appellant's mobile phone were imposed. The Appellant appealed with leave to the Court of Appeal against the sentence only.
Facts relied on at sentence (as summarised in the judgment): police seized the Appellant's mobile phone and found large quantities of indecent images: 1,058 Category A images (176 moving), 1,396 Category B images (523 moving) and 1,565 Category C images (7 moving). The Appellant had communicated online and distributed 22 Category A images and 3 Category B images, including moving videos depicting very young children being sexually assaulted. The judge identified aggravating features (young age and vulnerability of victims, length of distribution, large volume of images, distribution of moving images, many victims) and mitigating features (good character, remorse, history of being abused, engagement with Company A, neurodiversity diagnoses, attendance at psychotherapy sessions and other steps to address offending). The Crown opened and both parties proceeded on the basis that the relevant offending dates were between 31 July 2022 and 4 July 2023.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge was wrong to decline to reduce the guideline starting point for the lead offence before applying credit for guilty plea, such that the overall sentence should have been capable of suspension.
- Whether the judge was wrong to uplift the lead offence to reflect totality by taking account of possession (the large volume of images) in addition to distribution, when structuring the sentence around the lead distribution offence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Thompson)
- The judge should have reduced the starting point in the guideline for the lead offence before applying plea credit because mitigating factors substantially outweighed aggravating features.
- The judge erred in uplifting the lead distribution offence by using the volume of images in possession as an aggravating factor for distribution; possession was, the defence submitted, subsumed within the distribution offending.
- Given the many mitigating factors (including no previous convictions, remorse, youth, neurodiversity, history of abuse, and extensive engagement with treatment), the sentence should have been capable of suspension.
Appellee's / Crown's Arguments (Attorney Knight)
- Responded to a procedural concern about the charged date ranges by explaining the Crown's case was based on forensic date ranges and specific timestamps for distribution; the relevant period of offending was circa 31 July 2022 to 4 July 2023 and the convictions remained safe.
- Maintained that the judge was entitled to treat the Category A distribution count as the lead offence and to adjust upwards to reflect totality, including separate considerations for possession and other distribution counts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Gould [2021] EWCA Crim 447 |
Guidance that an obvious typographical error or divergence between a charge and the evidence as to date need not be fatal to conviction and that the judge may proceed to sentence on the basis agreed by parties. |
The court treated the factual/date divergence as analogous, accepted that the parties and judge proceeded on a common understanding of the relevant timeframe, and held the committal and sentence were valid without amendment of the charge dates. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court of Appeal first addressed a procedural issue: the police charge particulars used an overly broad date range that included dates before the relevant statutory provision and included periods when the Appellant was under the age of criminal responsibility. The court accepted the Crown's explanation that the operative evidence and timestamps established the relevant offending period as approximately 31 July 2022 to 4 July 2023 and, applying the principle in R v Gould, concluded that the charge divergence did not render the convictions unsafe and did not require amendment.
On the substantive appeal against sentence the court accepted that the judge was entitled to treat the Category A distribution offence as the lead count. The court noted the applicable starting point for Category A distribution was 3 years' custody (category range 2–5 years) and that the Sentencing Council guideline on totality permits upward adjustment to reflect overall offending when concurrent sentences would not adequately reflect total harm and culpability. The court rejected the defence submission that possession was subsumed into distribution: the Appellant had distributed 22 Category A images and 3 Category B images but possessed nearly 4,000 images (including many moving Category A images), and possession was relevant to totality. The judge had identified both mitigating factors (good character, remorse, treatment engagement, neurodiversity, personal history) and significant aggravating features (very young victims, multiple victims, moving images, year-long distribution, high volume). Given those findings, the court found the judge's decision to structure an uplifted notional sentence (3½ years before credit, reducing to 28 months after credit) to reflect totality was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Crown Court sentence (notional 3½ years before credit, reduced to 28 months' imprisonment after credit) and ancillary orders (10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and deprivation of the mobile phone) were upheld.
Implications: The immediate consequence is that the Appellant's sentence and orders remain in force. The judgment affirms that a sentencing judge may treat a distribution offence as the lead count and appropriately adjust the notional sentence upwards to reflect totality where possession and other distribution conduct increase overall harm and culpability; no new legal precedent was created beyond applying existing guidance (including R v Gould and the Sentencing Council guidelines) to the facts of this case.