[2025] EWCA Crim 1285

We are grateful to Mr Hunter Gray for his written and oral submissions, and to Mr Dudley for his submissions too, both in the respondent's notice and orally. Mr Gray submits that the judge was wrong to elevate the offences to category 2B under the guideline, when in fact they fell squarely within category 3B, where the starting point was a high level community order and the range up to six months' custody. He submits that there was substantial mitigation in the appellant's good character, the loss of his job, the passage of time since the offences were committed, and the impact of the sentence on the appellant's family. Mr Gray submits that none of the category 2 harm factors was present, as the judge had acknowledged. He submits that the judge was wrong to treat as an aggravating factor in count 2 the location of the offence being in a car. He drew out attention to the drop-down expansion expansion of this factor in the guideline which in some ways, it might be said, supports that as a general proposition.

Mr Gray accepts that the judge was entitled to impose a higher sentence on count 4, but not to the extent of moving up from category 3B to category 2B. He submits that in passing a sentence substantially above the guideline range for category 3B, the judge failed to allow sufficient credit for the appellant's mitigation and, in addition, failed sufficiently to reflect the principle of totality.

In his written and oral submissions, Mr Dudley contends that on a proper application of the guidelines, the judge was fully entitled to move out of category 3B, in particular because of the finding of serious psychological harm which the judge had made.