Bristow & Anor, R. v

In sentencing serious child sexual offences, the sentence must reflect the full criminality of multiple offences, including joint offending and the recording of penetrative abuse. A sentence based principally on a single offence may be unduly lenient where it fails to reflect those features, subject to totality and appropriate credit for guilty pleas.

An extended sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226A is not mandatory merely because dangerousness is found. The court must assess the present risk and all the circumstances. Where an offender demonstrably poses a significant risk of further serious harm, an extended licence may nevertheless be required.

The Attorney General referred, as unduly lenient, sentences imposed at Bradford Crown Court on Andrew Bristow and Michael Peters for serious child sexual offences. Bristow had raped a child under 13, sexually assaulted that child and sexually assaulted another child. Peters had photographed the penetrative abuse, committed sexual activity with a further child and possessed indecent images.

The Crown Court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence on Bristow, and six years’ imprisonment on Peters. The central issues were whether those sentences adequately reflected the multiplicity and aggravating features of the offending, and whether extended sentences were required.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The court granted leave and held that both aggregate sentences were unduly lenient.
2. For Bristow, the sentencing judge had adopted a starting point slightly below ten years for the rapes of Child 1. That approach could have been appropriate for one rape under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 5. It did not sufficiently reflect two rapes, the further sexual assault, joint offending, multiple features of high culpability, and the recording of the penetrative abuse. The proper starting point for counts 4 and 5 was not less than 12 years’ imprisonment. After full credit for the guilty pleas, each sentence was increased from six and a half years to eight years’ imprisonment.
3. The court preserved the consecutive two-year sentence for the sexual assault of Child 2. It considered that the judge could have imposed a more severe sentence on that count, but totality made further interference unnecessary. The sentence for count 3 remained concurrent.
4. An extended licence was not compulsory under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226A, even if dangerousness was established. Given the time since Bristow’s offending and the pre-sentence report, the judge had been entitled not to impose a further extension. The existing one-year extended period on the rape counts remained.
5. For Peters, the court held that the production of category A images recording the rapes, considered with the related image offences, warranted a starting point towards the top of the applicable range: nine years’ imprisonment. With full credit for plea, count 6 required a custodial term of six years rather than four.
6. Peters was a dangerous offender. The pre-sentence material showed that he was a predatory paedophile who demonstrably posed a significant risk of further serious harm through further specified offences. An extended sentence under section 226A should therefore have been imposed. The court substituted a nine-year extended sentence, comprising six years’ custody and a three-year extended licence, to follow the undisturbed two-year sentence on count 11. The concurrent sentences on counts 7 and 12 were unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the Attorney General’s reference and increased the sentences.
• Bradford Crown Court: on 18 May 2017 imposed sentences on both offenders; Bristow’s sentence was amended on 25 May 2017.