Edwards, R v

In sentencing for serious sexual offences against a child, the court must assess culpability by reference to the adult offender’s responsibility and the child’s vulnerability. A child’s apparent willingness, sexual curiosity or crush on the adult does not amount to the child having seduced the adult and cannot justify suspending an otherwise inevitable custodial sentence.

Young boys, like young girls, are vulnerable. Sentencing should not distinguish between them by gender unless the nature of the offence justifies a distinction.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient the sentence imposed on Sharon Edwards by the Recorder of Middlesbrough at Teesside Crown Court on 13 October 2008.

Edwards, aged 39 and of good character, pleaded guilty to four offences of sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and to offering to supply cocaine contrary to section 4(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The child was a 14-year-old boy known to her family.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with a two-year supervision requirement. He treated the case as exceptional because he considered that the boy had seduced Edwards. The central issue was whether that conclusion rendered the suspended sentence unduly lenient.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The suspended sentences were unduly lenient. The Court substituted immediate sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.

2. The Recorder’s conclusion that the 14-year-old had seduced Edwards was unsupported by the evidence. The boy was a virgin who had not previously used drugs. Edwards was an experienced adult who had known him since childhood, was closely connected with his family, and had a responsibility to reject and discourage his advances. The communications showed that she actively participated in both the sexual and drug-related exchanges. His apparent willingness did not diminish her responsibility.

3. The offences involved serious culpability. Although Edwards had substantial mitigation, including previous good character, depression, guilty pleas and severe personal consequences, that mitigation did not justify suspending the inevitable custodial sentence. The erroneous assessment of the boy’s role materially affected the sentencing decision.

4. The Court confirmed that boys as well as girls are vulnerable for sentencing purposes. The sentencing approach should be gender-neutral unless the nature of a particular offence justifies a distinction.

5. Giving credit for the guilty pleas, mitigation and the double-jeopardy principle applicable to an Attorney General’s reference, the proper sentence remained 12 months’ imprisonment. The suspension was removed and the sentences were ordered to take effect upon Edwards’s surrender to custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the suspended sentences were varied to immediate concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment.
• Teesside Crown Court: On 13 October 2008, the Recorder of Middlesbrough imposed 12 months’ imprisonment on each count, suspended for two years, with a two-year supervision requirement.