R v Roddis

In sentencing under a definitive guideline, the court must first select the category which most closely resembles the offending by reference to the guideline’s specified culpability and harm factors. The scale of offending does not justify abandoning that discipline where it can properly be reflected through upward adjustment and aggravation.

Multiple features of culpability may justify a substantial increase from the category starting point. A non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors may also justify a sentence outside the category range. For repeated offending against different victims over a prolonged period, the statutory maximum for one count does not cap the aggregate sentence. Consecutive sentences may be required, subject to totality.

The appellant pleaded guilty to nine counts of voyeurism contrary to section 67(3) and (5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Between 2016 and 2019, while working as a masseur, he secretly recorded female clients undressing by means of a concealed camera. More than 900 recordings were found, although there was no evidence of distribution.

The magistrates committed him to the Crown Court at Cambridge for sentence. On 18 July 2021, the Crown Court imposed consecutive terms totalling four years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with the single judge’s leave. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the definitive guideline and the principle of totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence was reduced from four years to three years’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had wrongly compressed the required stages of guideline analysis. Under section 65 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the judge should first have selected the category which most closely resembled the case. The scale of offending did not permit departure from that obligation. It could instead be reflected within the guideline’s adjustment stages.

3. The offences fell within category 2. Although culpability was raised by the recording, breach of trust and planning, the guideline’s raised-harm factors were absent. The images were not available for viewing by others, and the victims were not observed or recorded in their homes or residences. The category 2 starting point was therefore a high-level community order.

4. The combination of culpability features made the case particularly grave. It justified upward adjustment to the top of the category range, namely 26 weeks’ custody. The prolonged offending, its location, and its large scale were further aggravating features. The scale was highly relevant even though it was not expressly listed, because the guideline’s list was non-exhaustive. These factors could justify moving outside the category range, while the absence of antecedents, difficult domestic circumstances, loss of livelihood and delay remained mitigating matters.

5. A sentence of 30 weeks on each count could have been justified before credit for the guilty pleas. After that credit and a modest reduction for totality, four months’ imprisonment on each count was appropriate. Consecutive sentences were appropriate because the offences involved multiple victims over a long period. The statutory maximum for an individual count did not operate as a ceiling on the aggregate sentence for such multiple offending. All nine four-month terms were to be consecutive, producing the minimum justified total of three years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment: [2021] EWCA Crim 1583.

• Crown Court at Cambridge On 18 July 2021, imposed consecutive sentences totalling four years’ imprisonment for nine voyeurism counts.

• Magistrates’ court Accepted the appellant’s guilty pleas and committed him to the Crown Court for sentence.