R v Jordan Frank Croft

In an undue-leniency reference, the question is whether the sentence falls outside the range which a judge, properly applying all relevant factors, could reasonably regard as appropriate. An extended sentence must protect the public through the extended licence period; its custodial term must remain the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offending under the Sentencing Code.

Comparisons with sentences in other cases provide limited assistance. For multiple sexual offences, custodial terms above about 30 years after trial are comparatively rare and reserved for particularly serious offending, assessed in the context of other grave cases.

The offender pleaded guilty to 65 offences involving sustained online sexual abuse, coercion and blackmail of 26 female victims, most of whom were children. The Crown Court at Lewes imposed an extended determinate sentence of 26 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period.

By a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Solicitor General contended that the sentence was unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the overall sentence properly reflected the exceptional seriousness and totality of the offending.

1. Leave to refer was refused. The sentence was not unduly lenient. The court paid tribute to the sentencing judge’s careful assessment of the extensive harm, the planning, manipulation and degrading nature of the offending, and the absence of mitigation beyond credit for guilty pleas.

2. The court applied the requirement in section 231(2) of the Sentencing Code that the custodial term be the shortest term commensurate with seriousness, however grave the offending. An extended sentence protects the public by extending the licence period. It does not justify increasing custody beyond the commensurate term. The court applied R v AYO [2022] EWCA Crim 1271 on that point.

3. The court accepted that comparisons with other serious sexual-offence sentences have limited value because facts and circumstances differ. It nevertheless applied the guidance in R v AYO that a total custodial term above about 30 years after trial will be comparatively rare and reserved for particularly serious offending. The present offending was grave, but did not reach that category when viewed against yet more serious cases. The cases of R v Falder [2018] EWCA Crim 2514 and R v Wilson [2021] EWCA Crim 839 involved more offences, more victims and/or additional aggravating factors.

4. Applying the established test in Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, the total sentence remained within the range reasonably open to the judge. A slightly longer pre-plea sentence could also have been open, but that did not make the sentence imposed unduly lenient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the Solicitor General leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 11 November 2022, Her Honour Judge Laing KC DL imposed an extended determinate sentence of 26 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period.