R v Mark Page

A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range which a judge applying all relevant factors could reasonably regard as appropriate. Where serious sexual offences concern different victims and concurrent terms do not reflect the total criminality, consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate, subject to the overriding requirement of a just and proportionate overall sentence.

A sentencing court should address dangerousness in grave sexual-offence cases. A finding of significant risk of serious harm does not require an extended determinate sentence where a lengthy determinate term and an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order sufficiently protect the public.

The offender was convicted at Teesside Crown Court of four offences of arranging the commission of a child sex offence contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences concerned online arrangements and sexual activity with children in the Philippines. He received concurrent terms, producing a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, and an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

Her Majesty’s Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender sought leave to appeal against sentence. The central issues were whether concurrent sentences adequately reflected separate offending against different children, and whether dangerousness required an extended determinate sentence.

1. The court granted leave for the Solicitor General’s reference, held that the 12-year sentence was unduly lenient, and refused the offender leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Applying Attorney-General’s Reference No. 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, the question was whether the sentence fell outside the range which a judge applying all relevant factors could reasonably regard as appropriate. The judge had been entitled to identify substantial sentences for each count. The error lay in the overall structure of the sentence.

3. The Sentencing Council Totality Guideline does not impose an inflexible concurrent-or-consecutive rule. However, consecutive terms will ordinarily be appropriate where offences against different people would not have their overall criminality sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences. Counts 4 and 5 involved separate children and were substantially separated in time. The offending in Counts 2 and 3 was also separate and distinct. Although aggregation within one count may sometimes be proper, the judge’s approach improperly restricted the available sentencing powers and understated the total criminality.

4. The court held that a total of 24 years would be disproportionate, but that 18 years was the least appropriate sentence. It also held that the sentencing judge should have addressed dangerousness and considered whether a pre-sentence report was required. On the proved repeated predatory offending, the court found a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences.

5. An extended determinate sentence was nevertheless unnecessary. An 18-year determinate term, coupled with the indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order, sufficiently protected the public. The court quashed the sentences on Counts 4 and 5, substituted nine years’ imprisonment for each, ordered those terms to be consecutive to each other and concurrent with the seven-year terms on Counts 2 and 3, and thereby imposed a total of 18 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court held the sentence unduly lenient on a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, substituted an 18-year total sentence, and refused the offender leave to appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court sitting at Teesside: The offender was convicted after trial on 9 March 2022 and, on 10 March 2022, received concurrent sentences producing a total of 12 years’ imprisonment, together with an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order.