Harrison, R v

On a sentencing appeal, the court assesses the total sentence and asks whether it is manifestly excessive. Sentencing guidelines assist that assessment but do not permit an arithmetical or mechanistic approach.

A consensual sexual relationship with a child does not remove the seriousness of offending by a substantially older adult. The protective purpose of the law, grooming, penetrative intercourse over time and the age disparity may justify a severe custodial sentence.

Under section 107 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a sexual offences prevention order may validly continue until further order.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to five offences of sexual activity with a child and to possession of an indecent image of a child. He had engaged in sexual intercourse over several months with a girl aged 14, whose age he knew, and had sent sexually explicit messages to an 11-year-old girl and obtained an indecent image from her.

Judge Kemp imposed concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment for the sexual activity offences and a consecutive 12-month sentence for possession of the image, making six years in total. The judge also made a sexual offences prevention order under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also considered the duration of the prevention order and the omitted mandatory disqualification order.

1. Appeal dismissed as to the custodial sentence. The court held that the proper question was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive. Guidelines were guides, not a basis for arithmetical calculation or a mechanistic result.

2. The six-year total sentence was severe and at the upper end of the unobjectionable range, but it was not manifestly excessive. The offending involved two young girls, grooming, a substantial age gap, and penetrative intercourse with the 14-year-old over a significant period.

3. The consensual nature of the relationship with the 14-year-old, precautions taken during intercourse, the appellant's previous good character, guilty pleas and mitigation did not require a reduction. The law in this field protects vulnerable young people, including from their own choices.

4. The indefinite sexual offences prevention order was valid. Section 107 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 expressly permits an order to continue until further order, which was the form of order made here.

5. A mandatory order disqualifying the appellant from working with children had been omitted. The court added that order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2008] EWCA Crim 3170, dismissed the appeal against the six-year custodial sentence, upheld the sexual offences prevention order, and added a mandatory disqualification order.
• Crown Court at Lewes — Judge Kemp sentenced the appellant to six years' imprisonment in total and made a sexual offences prevention order.