![[2025] EWCA Crim 1411](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_sHeHK8V.png){kind=logo}
Section 1
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. For the avoidance of any doubt, we do not waive or lift the prohibition. Furthermore, it seems to us that in this case there is a significant risk of identification unless the name of the offender is anonymised. As a result from now on this case should be as not by reference to the offender's name but by reference to "UCS".
His Majesty Solicitor General applies for leave to refer a sentence that she regards as unduly lenient. The sentence which was passed on 16 June 2025 in the Crown Court at Norwich by Mr Recorder Taylor KC was a sentence of 8 years in aggregate in respect of a catalogue of serious sexual offending over a period of about 18 months. His victim (to whom we shall refer as "V") was aged 13 when the offending started in April 2023 and 14 when it came to an end in October 2024. The sentence of 8 years was reached after allowing a reduction of one-third on account of the offender's early pleas of guilty. It follows that the Recorder would have considered a sentence of 12 years to have been appropriate in the aggregate had the offender contested the charges and been convicted after a trial.
The sole issue is whether the aggregate sentence of 8 years adequately reflects the culpability of the offender and the harm he has caused by his prolonged course of offending. We give leave.
The factual background
In a little more detail, the offences and the sentences that were imposed in relation to each were as follows:
Count 1 was an offence of penetrative sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) and 9(2)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [“the Act”]. Upon the offender's plea of guilty he was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
Count 2 was a further charge of penetrative sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) and 9(2)(a) of the Act. On his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 3 was a further count of penetrative sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) and 9(2)(b) of the Act. On his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 4 was a further count of penetrative sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) and 9(2)(b) of the Act. On his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 5 was a further count of penetrative sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) and 9(2)(a) of the Act. On his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 6 was a count of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) of the Act. Upon his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent.
Count 7 was an offence of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 10(1) of the Act. Upon his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent.
The maximum term that was available to the court on each of these seven counts was one of 14 years' imprisonment.
The counts were a mixture of single and multiple-incident counts, thus count 1 was a single-incident count involving penile penetration of V's vagina. Count 2 was a multi-incident count involving the penile penetration of V's vagina on at least five occasions other than in count 1. Count 3 was a single incident count involving penile penetration of V's mouth. Count 4 was a multiple incident count involving penile penetration of V's mouth on at least 19 occasions other than in count 3. Count 5 was a multiple-incident count involving the penetration of V's vagina with his tongue on at least three occasions. Count 6 was a single-incident count which involved ejaculating over V's body, and count 7 was a multiple-incident count involving causing V to masturbate him on at least two occasions. As charged therefore, the offender's conduct involved at least 32 incidents of which at least 6 involved penile penetration of V's vagina, at least three involved penetration of her vagina with his tongue and at least 20 involved penile penetration of her mouth. Simple application of the maths shows that the abuse must have been almost weekly.
The offender was in a relationship with V's mother (to whom we shall refer as "M") for about 5 years before the relationship came to an end in October/November 2024. V was to all intents and purposes the offender's stepdaughter. Soon after he had left, V disclosed the abuse to M, who promptly informed the police. The abuse had occurred in V's home, typically on Thursday evenings when M would go out to bingo. V and the offender would be left alone in the house and would watch films on the sofa. The abuse progressed quite quickly from touching to full penetrative activity and would occur either on the sofa or in his bed. On occasions when sexual intercourse occurred he would tell her he was about to ejaculate and then do so onto her chest. She described performing oral sex on him on numerous occasions. On other occasions he would penetrate her vagina with his tongue or his fingers which made her feel uncomfortable. After abusing her, the offender would tell her that she could not tell anyone because if she did he would get into trouble, would go to prison and would lose everything.
When interviewed after his arrest, the offender made significant admissions though he claimed that V had instigated the sexual activity. He at least accepted that as an adult he should have pushed her away. He was aged 43 to 45 at the time of the offending and is 46 now. He had no previous convictions and one caution for theft in 2017.