Sippings, R. v

In sentencing for voyeurism and associated image offences, custody must be appropriate and warranted after an overall assessment of seriousness, harm and the offender’s personal circumstances. Repeated covert recording is serious, but the absence of distribution, previous good character, severe mental-health difficulties and a genuine need for sustained community treatment may make immediate imprisonment inappropriate. Where the statutory dates of offending prevent a current community order from addressing the bulk of an indictment, the court may substitute a community-based sentence under the earlier statutory regime that can do so.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Lincoln Crown Court to five offences of taking indecent photographs of a child and two offences of voyeurism under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 67. The offending comprised covert filming over several years of a young woman in her bedroom, first when she was aged 14 or 15 and later when she was an adult.

The Crown Court imposed an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with concurrent custodial sentences on the remaining counts. The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether custody was required and, if not, what community sentence could properly reflect offences committed across different statutory regimes.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the custodial sentences and substituted a 36-month Community Rehabilitation Order.
2. The sentencing judge had given no reason for concluding that custody was required. The Court of Appeal therefore considered for itself whether imprisonment was appropriate and warranted.
3. The offending was serious. It involved repeated covert filming over a long period and caused understandable distress through the invasion of the complainant’s privacy. However, there was no distribution of the images, the earlier images were at the lowest level of indecency, and the appellant had pleaded guilty and was of previous good character.
4. The appellant’s severe anxiety, agoraphobia, social isolation and continuing need for psychiatric support materially affected the sentencing assessment. The evidence showed that custody was likely to worsen his condition, whereas long-term treatment and supervision in the community were necessary for rehabilitation. In those circumstances, a custodial sentence was inappropriate.
5. The comparative authorities illustrated that covert recording may justify either a custodial or non-custodial sentence according to its circumstances. R v IP [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 102 concerned a non-custodial outcome; R v Turner [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 51 involved more aggravated offending and justified custody.
6. A community order under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could attach only to the later voyeurism count. To address the bulk of the indictment, the court imposed a Community Rehabilitation Order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. It required sex-offender groupwork, mental-health treatment and no contact with the complainant without approval of the responsible officer.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 46, the court allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the custodial sentences and substituted a 36-month Community Rehabilitation Order.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: On 23 October 2007, the appellant received an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, together with concurrent custodial sentences on the remaining counts. No citation was stated.