MS, R. v

Where an offence falls squarely within the middle of the applicable sentencing guideline range, a sentence above the stated custodial starting point requires a clear and articulated justification. The seriousness of sexual grooming makes custody inevitable, but it does not itself justify departure above the guideline starting point.

A prompt guilty plea at the first opportunity warranted full credit. In the circumstances, the appropriate reduction was one third from the two-year starting point.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the Crown Court to attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The intended substantive offence was said to be an offence under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The apparent 14-year-old girl with whom he communicated online and arranged to meet was an undercover police officer. Judge Rivlin QC imposed 30 months’ imprisonment and ancillary orders preventing contact with children under 16.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether, after credit for his guilty plea, the sentence exceeded the applicable guideline.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent indicated. The court quashed the sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and substituted 16 months’ imprisonment. The ancillary orders restricting contact with children under 16 remained in force.

2. The applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline gave a custodial range of one to four years and a starting point of two years where the victim was aged 13 or over but under 16. On the facts as the appellant believed them to be, the apparent victim was 14. The offence therefore fell, for practical purposes, in the middle of the guideline.

3. Grooming children for sexual purposes is serious and custody was inevitable. However, there was no clear reason to move above the two-year starting point, and none had been stated in the sentencing judge’s remarks.

4. The appellant’s prompt guilty plea was the principal mitigating factor. Full credit required a one-third reduction, namely eight months, from the two-year starting point. That produced the substituted sentence of 16 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by [2008] EWCA Crim 600, allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of quashing 30 months’ imprisonment and substituting 16 months.

• Crown Court: following a guilty plea, Judge Rivlin QC imposed 30 months’ imprisonment and orders preventing contact with children under 16.