R v Thomas Timpson

A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge after considering all relevant factors and the applicable Sentencing Council Guidelines. Concurrent sentences must reflect overall criminality, including appropriate aggravation for associated offences. In repeated sexual offending against a child, grooming, age disparity and multiple penetrative acts may require movement above a single-offence starting point; the victim’s age does not necessarily justify downward movement. A contested trial does not entitle an offender to a reduction as if an early guilty plea had been entered. Exceptional court backlogs, where reasonable remedial action is taken, do not ordinarily make delay an actionable Article 6 breach or justify a sentence reduction.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Nottingham, the respondent was convicted of six offences under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, together with offences under sections 15(a) and 10. The sentencing judge treated the penetrative offences as Category 1A, but reduced the starting point for the victim’s age and then reduced the sentence by 25 per cent for delay. Concurrent sentences produced a total of three years’ imprisonment.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the starting point failed to reflect repeated offending and that the reduction for delay was excessive. The central issues were whether the sentence fell outside the range reasonably open to the judge and whether the procedural delay justified any reduction.

1. Reference allowed. The court granted leave to refer the sentence and found the total sentence unduly lenient. The concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment on Counts 3 to 6 were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment. The other sentences remained unaltered, making the total sentence six years.
2. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the question was whether the term imposed fell outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The court applied the principles stated in Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) 1991 WLR 41, giving substantial weight to the trial judge’s assessment while applying the relevant Sentencing Council Guidelines.
3. The five-year starting point in the guideline reflected a single offence and did not account for the repeated offending over several months. The Sentencing Council Totality Guideline required the sentence to reflect the overall criminality and to be appropriately aggravated by the associated offences. The least appropriate uplift was 12 months, producing a six-year starting point.
4. The victim’s age did not justify moving the starting point to the bottom of the category range. Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was intended to protect immature girls from predatory sexual offenders. The grooming, age disparity, high culpability and repeated penetrative offending placed the offences squarely in Category A. A younger victim might have justified movement higher within the range, but the victim’s age in this case provided no basis for downward movement.
5. The judge also erred in reducing the sentence for delay. The respondent was entitled to contest the trial and was not to be penalised for doing so, but he was not entitled to a benefit equivalent to an early guilty plea. Any reduction in the circumstances would have required delay wholly out of the ordinary. The charging and early Crown Court chronology disclosed no significant delay. Although the pandemic caused an exceptional backlog, the courts had taken remedial measures. There was therefore no actionable interference with the respondent’s Article 6 rights and no proper basis for a reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On a reference by the Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court found the sentence unduly lenient, quashed the concurrent sentences on Counts 3 to 6 and substituted six-year concurrent sentences. [2023] EWCA Crim 453
• Crown Court at Nottingham — Convicted the respondent of the offences and imposed concurrent sentences producing a total of three years’ imprisonment.