REX v MARK ANTHONY WILSON

In an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the first-instance judge. Permission is exceptional and is not granted for borderline cases. The appellate court must respect the sentencing judge’s assessment of dangerousness where the judge applied the correct principles and the conclusion was properly open. Totality does not justify making all sentences concurrent where multiple victims, prolonged offending and seriousness require some consecutive sentence. The court must still avoid simply adding every sentence together and should impose a proportionate overall sentence.

The respondent pleaded guilty to 27 offences involving sexual communications, indecent images and threats directed predominantly at children. On 15 June 2022, HHJ Stead sentenced him at the Crown Court at Teesside to six years and eight months’ imprisonment, equivalent to ten years after trial credit.

The Solicitor General applied for permission to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The challenges concerned the sentencing judge’s assessment of dangerousness and the decision to make all offences under one committal concurrent. The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient and what adjustment was required consistently with totality.

1. Permission and applicable principles. The court granted permission for the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It applied the established principles summarised in Attorney General’s Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846: the sentencing judge is particularly well placed to assess competing factors; a sentence is unduly lenient only if outside the reasonably available range; and permission is reserved for exceptional cases involving gross error rather than borderline disagreement.
2. Dangerousness. The court accepted that it was not its role to substitute its own assessment of dangerousness for that of the sentencing judge. The proper questions were whether the judge erred in principle and whether the conclusion was properly open to him after considering the relevant factors. That approach was consistent with R v Johnson [2006] EWCA Crim 2486. The judge had considered the dangerousness provisions in section 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020, and there was no proper basis to interfere.
3. Totality. Although totality required a just and proportionate overall sentence, it did not justify making all offences under committal S20220034 concurrent. The number of victims, the duration of the offending and its seriousness meant that the result fell outside the reasonable sentencing range. Conversely, making every sentence consecutive would also have been unjust.
4. Order. The four-year sentence on charge 2 under committal S20220034 was made consecutive to the other sentences. The total sentence was therefore increased to 10 years and eight months’ imprisonment.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2022] EWCA Crim 1317, permission was granted for the Attorney General’s reference. The sentence was found unduly lenient and increased by making one four-year sentence consecutive.
2. Crown Court at Teesside — HHJ Stead sentenced the respondent on 15 June 2022 to six years and eight months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.