202501950 A5 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1047

Early in his sentencing remarks, the Recorder drew attention to the distinctly individualistic approach that was required when young people commit serious offences which, if perpetrated by an adult, would result in a term of imprisonment of many years. Having outlined the facts, including accepting (twice) that the Offender was acting under “a level of coercion from others when [he] perpetrated these acts”, he prefaced his application of the relevant guideline for sentencing children and young people for sexual offences by considering what the appropriate sentence would be for an adult who had committed the same offences, concluding that “three episodes of non-penetrative but serious sexual assault of a six year old child would have resulted in a total sentence of at least 10 years and in all likelihood 12 years’ imprisonment.”

The Recorder then turned to the fact that the Offender was not an adult:

“…you were aged 16 at the time but this conduct did involve an element of grooming, it was also repeated, it also involved taking indecent images of V and distributing them. I accept however that you were pressured and coerced by others on the internet to do this. Let there be no misunderstanding you were being used and exploited by others online to do this.

Consequently basing myself upon the various reports to which I have called attention you were a child aged 16 when you did this you were vulnerable to exploitation by others and at the time unable to gauge that you were being exploited. You have expressed profound remorse, shame and guilt. You have an autism spectrum disorder; you suffer from ADHD and impulsivity is an aspect of it. You self-harmed following your arrest.”

After referring to the letter from the Offender’s mother and the various reports he summarised his view as follows:

“My overall assessment of you having regard to that very brief summary of the contents of very full reports that you are a vulnerable and complex young man.

It is very important to emphasise by reference to the various guidelines relating to sentencing young people that very different considerations apply. Your age and level of maturity when you perpetrated the crime is of importance. Children and young people are less emotionally developed. Very often there is inappropriate sexual experimentation and on occasion as in this case there was exploitation of you and coercion. Furthermore you have the learning disability and your mental health is of significance.”

The Recorder then said that he had the further guideline of the Sentencing Council in relation to sentencing those who have a learning disability and mental health problems well in mind. He continued by applying the various steps required by the Guideline for sentencing Children and Young Persons for Sexual Offences. In doing so he repeated his view that the Offender was a young man with very considerable difficulties who was “coerced and in effect forced to do as [he] did”, repeating that there was an element of grooming in the case; and he expressed the hope that one day V and her mother would be able to come to terms which what happened and why it happened. He also made express reference to paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 to 1.10 of the relevant Sentencing Children and Young People Definitive Guideline.

The Recorder then set out his analysis for the present case. He commenced by stating that the mitigation in this case is “immense”. He then turned to what sentence would have been appropriate if the Court were to impose a custodial sentence, concluding that a sentence of 3 ½ years detention would have been appropriate.

The Recorder then said:

“I have as I am required to stepped back. I must take an individual approach. I particularly have regard to the fact that you were coerced yourself into doing this. You have significant mental health problems as I have sought to explain and they are fully set out in the various reports. I have furthermore considered the recent addendum to the Pre-Sentence Report where you are plainly amenable to rehabilitation and I emphasise yet again I am not sentencing you as a 19 year old man for committing these offences I am sentencing you as if you were aged 16 in the circumstances that I have set out.

Accordingly I have come to the conclusion that the right course of action in this case and it is not an act of leniency it is simply the right sentence in all the circumstances of this case that a three year community order is the right course of action.”

Having checked with Counsel that he had not omitted anything of importance he sentenced the Offender in the terms that included the express recognition that, despite the seriousness of the case, “the right course of action here is to improve you as a human being [if] that can be done.”