Scott M, R. v

A sentence for blackmail involving planned and repeated threats of serious violence or death must reflect the offence’s grave seriousness and ordinarily requires substantial immediate custody. Sentencing must also give proper weight to personal mitigation. This includes the traumatic effect of historic sexual abuse on the offender, where relevant, and full credit for candid admissions and a guilty plea entered at the first opportunity. A sentence that would have been appropriate after a trial may be manifestly excessive if it fails adequately to reflect that full guilty-plea credit.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to blackmail and was sentenced on 11 April 2008 to four years’ custody. The victim had sexually assaulted him when he was 11 years old.

In 2007 the appellant demanded money from the victim and sent cards threatening serious violence and death unless further sums were paid. He made full admissions when arrested. He had no previous convictions and had suffered psychological trauma following the childhood abuse, but there was no suggestion of mental impairment or illness when the offence was committed.

The appeal concerned whether the four-year sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant’s background, admissions and early guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment was reduced to two years and eight months.

2. The offending was serious blackmail. It did not consist of a threat to reveal the historic sexual abuse. Rather, the appellant made planned and continuing threats of serious violence and death over several weeks, accompanied by substantial monetary demands. Those features plainly called for a substantial custodial sentence.

3. The appellant’s personal mitigation nevertheless required fuller effect. The historic sexual abuse had had an undoubted traumatic effect upon him. He also made full admissions in police interview and entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity. The court held that he was entitled to full credit for that plea.

4. Accordingly, although four years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate following a trial, it was too long after a guilty plea attracting full credit. The court regarded the cited sentencing authorities, including Attorney General's Reference No 67 of 2007 [2007] EWCA Crim 2878, as fact-specific and of limited assistance. The proper sentence was two years and eight months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the four-year custodial sentence to two years and eight months: [2008] EWCA Crim 1915.
• Sentencing court: The appellant was sentenced on 11 April 2008 to four years’ custody following a guilty plea to blackmail. The court is not stated in the judgment.