[2025] EWCA Crim 1285

In his sentencing remarks, the judge set out in some detail the circumstances of the offences and his factual findings. He noted in relation to count 2 that, although the allegation was not pursued to a formal misconduct hearing, the appellant had received a verbal warning as to his future behaviour and should have learnt his lesson from that.

In relation to count 4, the judge observed that the appellant had been supervising Y as her mentor prior to her promotion. Although by the time of the offence she and the appellant were ostensibly on the same level as supervisors, the judge took the view that there was an imbalance of power between them. He said:

In relation to the circumstances of the offence and Y's feeling unable to say anything when the assault took place because they were in the conference room, the judge said:

The judge referred to the victim personal statements which, he said, painted a picture of two professional police women who have had their mental health, their careers and their lives blighted by what the appellant had done to them.

The judge noted the evidence at trial that there had been a culture among police officers of not reporting each other – a culture of which, he said, the appellant was part. The judge observed that the public were rightly concerned about the behaviour of police officers because they had powers that other members of society did not have. Their role in upholding the law meant that they were frequently in contact with vulnerable people, which is why, the judge said, the public are concerned about the behaviour of police officers. The judge continued:

The judge turned to the Sentencing Council guideline for sexual assault. He found that although the complainants had suffered serious psychological harm, it could not be said to be severe psychological harm, a category 1 factor. The serious psychological harm they had suffered was, nevertheless, an aggravating feature of the case. As there were no other category 2 factors, it was category 3 harm.

In terms of culpability, it was level B, because none of the level A factors was present.

The judge took into account as a mitigating factor the appellant's good character. He noted that, although the offences had taken place five and ten years ago, part of the reason for the delay was the culture which had enabled and emboldened that appellant to do the things he did.

The judge regarded the location of the offences as an aggravating factor. The assault in count 2 took place in a police car, where X was unable to move away because she was driving. It took place when the appellant was at work. The offence in count 4 was aggravated by the appellant's failure to heed the warnings he had received previously and by the fact that he took advantage of the culture of not reporting the misbehaviour of other officers. He had also taken advantage of Y's relatively junior position and her junior years.

Applying the guideline, the judge considered that although on the face of it these were category 3B offences, the aggravating features he identified justified an upward adjustment to category 2B. Count 4, he said, was the more serious offence. The starting point under the guideline for a category 2B offence is 12 months' imprisonment, with a range of up to two years' custody. Here there were two victims. The judge indicated that he took into account totality in arriving at his overall sentence. The sentence on count 2 would be six months' imprisonment; and on count 4, a consecutive term of 12 months' imprisonment.

The judge considered whether the sentence could be suspended. He carefully identified and balanced the factors for and against suspension, as required by the relevant Sentencing Council guideline. He took the view that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. There has been no challenge to that conclusion.