R v Simon Leddington

When a defendant pleads guilty on an accepted factual basis and no Newton hearing is held, sentence must be imposed on that basis. For an extended sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020, the statutory conditions and significant-risk requirement must be assessed against those facts. Limited intended sexual activity, even when repeated, did not justify a finding of significant risk of serious harm here. The extended sentence was therefore manifestly excessive. Separate offences committed against different victims may represent separate criminality, even where the victims are fictitious in an online sting operation. Concurrent sentences within each group, followed consecutively between groups, may properly reflect totality.

The appellant appealed against sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Cardiff for four child-sex offences arising from two online sting operations. He had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and the Crown had accepted a basis of plea that the intended activity was limited to kissing and cuddling.

The Crown Court imposed an extended sentence of eight years for arranging or facilitating a child sex offence, concurrent sentences of 24 months for two breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, and six months for attempting to send sexual communications to a child. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was also imposed. The sentencing remarks created uncertainty because they initially referred to six months for the arranging offence. The central issues were dangerousness, the appropriate guideline categories, totality, and the proper statutory basis for the ancillary order.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the eight-year extended sentence was lawfully imposed in form, but was capable of challenge because it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
2. Where the Crown accepts a basis of plea and no Newton hearing is held, the defendant must be sentenced on that basis. The sentencing court could not treat the intended conduct as more serious than the accepted account of kissing and cuddling. Although the earlier-offence and custodial-term conditions under the Sentencing Act 2020 were satisfied, the facts did not justify concluding that there was a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public through further specified offences. The extended sentence was therefore manifestly excessive.
3. The arranging offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 fell within Category 3A. Applying the sentencing judge’s earlier calculation and the guilty-plea reduction, the proper sentence was six months. The separate six-month sentence for attempting to send sexual communications to a child was not manifestly excessive.
4. The two breaches of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order were on the cusp of Category 1A or at the top of Category 2B. Both produced the same pre-plea figure of two years. After a one-third reduction for guilty pleas, the proper sentence for each breach was 16 months.
5. The offences relating to each fictitious victim were properly concurrent with one another but consecutive to the offences relating to the other fictitious victim. They represented separate criminality and the structure respected totality.
6. The court quashed the extended sentence, the 24-month breach sentences and the order that the determinate sentences run concurrently. It substituted six months for the section 14 offence and 16 months for each breach, producing a total of 32 months’ imprisonment. Release was calculated by reference to section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order and other ancillary orders remained undisturbed. The record’s reference to section 103 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as the basis for the Sexual Harm Prevention Order was a statutory recording error; the correct provision was section 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020, and the order remained valid.

1. Crown Court at Cardiff: The appellant was sentenced for four offences arising from two online sting operations. The court imposed an extended sentence of eight years, concurrent sentences of 24 months for two breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, and six months for attempting to send sexual communications to a child.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The extended sentence and breach sentences were quashed and substituted, producing an overall sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment. Ancillary orders remained in force.