Farooq, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence following a guilty plea to an offence of sexual communication with a child contrary to section 15A(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 3 February 2026 the Appellant changed a plea of not guilty to guilty after cross-examination of the Complainant. The matter was adjourned for reports and, on 17 April 2026, the Crown Court at The City sentenced the Appellant to 17 months' imprisonment to be served immediately, imposed a statutory victim surcharge and a sexual harm prevention order. The appeal concerns whether the immediate custodial sentence should have been suspended.

On the facts, the offending occurred when the Appellant was aged between 18 and 20 (now 24) and the Complainant between 11 and 13. Contact began on Twitter and moved to WhatsApp and Instagram. The Appellant misrepresented his age and location. There were thousands of messages and voice notes, many sexual; recordings included the Appellant masturbating, sexual discussions about acts intended for the Complainant, and exchange of sexual images. After concerns were raised at school and by the Complainant's mother, phones were seized and further messages were discovered. The Appellant was interviewed on 15 June 2023 and gave an account of intervening because the Complainant had disclosed difficulties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was required in principle to suspend the sentence of immediate imprisonment or whether immediate custody was justified in all the circumstances of the case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Pre-Sentence Report stated the Appellant had demonstrated genuine remorse, a willingness to comply with statutory requirements, a realistic prospect of rehabilitation if managed in the community, and likely engagement with targeted intervention; therefore the sentence should have been suspended.
• Psychological report noted a history of depressive episodes and symptoms consistent with ADHD and PTSD (no formal diagnosis), which supported community management and rehabilitation prospects.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Prosecution's specific sentencing arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal (Judge Dingemans delivering the approved judgment) reviewed the sentencing judge's transcript and the materials before the sentencing judge, including the offence-specific guideline and the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). It was common ground that the offence fell within category A1 with a guideline starting point of 18 months. The sentencing judge considered aggravating features but did not elevate the starting point and gave modest credit for the late guilty plea, resulting in the 17-month sentence.

The sentencing judge expressly considered community and custodial sentencing guidance and the mitigation advanced, including the PSR's view of a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the sentencing judge concluded that only an immediate custodial sentence was justified, principally because of the seriousness of the offending: the duration of the conduct, the age disparity between the parties, and the significant effect on the Complainant. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had in fact had regard to the relevant guideline and mitigation and that the conclusion that immediate custody was required was a reasonable judgment in all the circumstances. The Court rejected the contention that the judge's failure to articulate every step rendered the decision wrong in principle.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The direct effect is that the sentence of 17 months' immediate imprisonment, the statutory victim surcharge and the sexual harm prevention order remain in force. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond affirming that, on these facts (duration of offending, age difference and harm to the victim), an immediate custodial sentence was properly imposed despite the PSR indicating prospects of rehabilitation.