202501950 A5 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1047

The original PSR contained much information and was amplified by an addendum report. Included in the original report were the Offender’s account of being coerced by individuals on a social media platform to take and distribute pictures of V; and that he had felt unable to disclose what he was doing because of intimidation, shame and confusion throughout.

As recorded by the writer of the PSR, the Offender’s account to her was:

“Prior to the offences occurring, he had been using a social media platform 'Quora'. Initially, he engaged in 'small talk' with a number of people on this platform. They then began to speak about family. Some people asked to see photos of [V], which he replied to with non-sexual images. The people responded with compliments such as 'she's cute'. They then asked him to send some naked pictures of [V]. He recalls that 'I didn't want to do it and I knew it was wrong', but these people told him 'we've got your IP address', so he was 'scared' that they would locate his home address and target him and his family there. He therefore took some naked images of [V]and sent them to these people.

The situation progressed; his on-line contacts asked him to undertake and record sexual acts with [V]. He did not feel able to disclose what was happening due to intimidation and shame. He felt 'confused' throughout the situation.

He recalls that there were 2-3 occasions when he undertook sexual acts with [V]. Firstly, when he put his penis near her mouth, but did not penetrate her mouth. Secondly, putting his penis between her thighs, but he did not penetrate her vagina.

He confirms that he gained an erection during these acts, but states he did not ejaculate. He reports that he does not have a sexual attraction to children. He is clear that he would not have acted in this way if he had not been communicating on-line with the individuals who were asking him for this material.”

It was the view of the writer that he was emotionally immature at the time of offending. She pointed out that he was himself a child at the time, with various identifiable vulnerabilities: however, there was no suggestion that he lacked legal capacity, so (in the view of the writer) he was culpable for his actions – and in conversation with the writer of the PSR the Offender said that he accepted responsibility for his actions. The writer agreed with the views of the experts that pursuing assessments for ASD and ADHD was and remained a high priority. The original PSR referred to him being “acutely vulnerable within the prison environment in terms of his emotional well-being and being susceptible to manipulation and bullying by others”. It also referred to the need for a “robust risk management plan” to be formulated. In the absence of professional intervention he presented a high risk of causing future harm to young females.

Further details of what such a plan could involve were provided by the addendum report. It states explicitly that the report was requested because the court was reluctant to send the Offender to prison: the writer was asked to consider nothing less than a 3-year community order. The writer’s response was that “it is … arguable that an intensive community-based sentence is the most constructive response to the situation, in that rehabilitative work is most likely to be successful if undertaken whilst [the Offender] is living in a familiar and supportive domestic environment.”

The writer then outlined a potential plan for sentencing and subsequent management which, in the event, was adopted by the Recorder save that the PSR suggestions included a requirement to do 200-300 hours of unpaid work in the community, which was not adopted.