Watkins & Anor v R. (Rev 2)

Where the sentence announced by the judge differs from the Crown Court record, the order is determined by the judge’s announcement. The record should be corrected to reflect that order. A judge’s mistaken explanation of the resulting release date does not ordinarily alter the sentence that was imposed.

For multiple offences, the total sentence must reflect the overall offending and be just and proportionate. Consecutive sentences may be required for separate criminality, particularly where serious offences concern different victims. Personal vulnerability or another offender’s influence does not reduce culpability where the evidence establishes willing participation and complicity rather than coercion.

The applicants pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court before Royce J to grave sexual offences involving infant children, together with related offences concerning indecent and extreme pornographic images. Watkins received consecutive sentences for offences involving two child victims, comprising a total of 29 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence period. P received a total determinate sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment.

Both applied for leave to appeal against sentence. Watkins challenged the recording and effect of his extended sentence, the credit for his late guilty pleas, and the proportionality of the total sentence. P contended that her culpability had not sufficiently reflected her asserted vulnerability and Watkins’ influence over her.

1. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The Crown Court record in Watkins’ case was ordered to be amended.

2. The sentence announced by Royce J was a concurrent determinate term of 15 years on counts 1 and 2, followed consecutively by concurrent extended sentences of 20 years on counts 8 and 9. The latter comprised 14 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence period. The total sentence was therefore 35 years. The judge had wrongly described the period before Watkins could be considered for release. That error did not determine the sentence imposed. The court applied Kent [1983] 77 Cr App R 120 and Bright [2008] EWCA Crim 462: the judicial announcement governs, and an error about release consequences is secondary. The corrected structure meant that Watkins was liable to serve 16 years and 10 months before eligibility for release.

3. Watkins was properly sentenced as a dangerous offender under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There was no basis for more than the conventional 10 per cent credit for guilty pleas entered at the start of trial. The recorded material was incontrovertible proof of guilt.

4. Applying the Sentencing Council totality guideline, the court held that consecutive sentences for the separate offending against two infant victims were correct in principle. The sentencing judge had addressed the overall criminality and made substantial reductions to reflect totality. A total of 29 years’ custody with a six-year extended licence period was not arguably manifestly excessive.

5. P was not a victim of Watkins’ conduct. The evidence established her willing corruption and complicity, not coercion. Her plea to conspiracy to rape admitted a serious criminal agreement concerning her infant daughter. The judge had adequately differentiated the offenders by imposing the lengthy consecutive sentence on Watkins. P’s total sentence of 17 years was neither erroneous in principle nor arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The court amended the Crown Court record to reflect the sentence announced by the judge.

• Cardiff Crown Court: Royce J sentenced Watkins and P on 26 November 2013 following their guilty pleas to sexual offences involving children and related image offences.