R v William Harrison

On a 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 sentencing judge. The exceptional jurisdiction corrects gross error rather than borderline disagreement. In assessing credit for guilty pleas on multiple counts, the court may take an overall view rather than use an arithmetical calculation. Credit is materially reduced where child witnesses have already been cross-examined under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. An extended sentence should be imposed where the statutory dangerousness assessment establishes a significant risk of serious harm and an extended licence period is needed to protect the public.

The offender pleaded guilty to two offences of causing or inciting girls aged under 13 to engage in sexual activity, and later to two child-abduction offences. The Crown Court at Bradford imposed concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment for the sexual offences and no separate penalty for the abduction counts.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference raised whether the starting point, aggravating features and guilty-plea reduction had been properly assessed, and whether the offender should have been found dangerous and given an extended sentence.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the reference. Applying the exceptional jurisdiction described in Attorney-General’s Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846, it held that the total sentence was unduly lenient. The original sentence fell outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

2. The sexual offences were correctly placed in category 2B. The six-year starting point was for one offence against one child. It should have been increased to reflect the offender’s record and the fact that there were two eight-year-old victims. There was little personal mitigation.

3. The reduction for guilty pleas had to reflect that the abduction counts proceeded to trial and the children had already been cross-examined under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Following the approach in Plaku & others [2021] EWCA Crim 658, the court took an overall view across the counts. It held that the appropriate custodial period after credit was six years.

4. The offender should have been found dangerous. The pre-sentence report and mobile-phone history established the necessary risk, and the sentencing judge gave no explanation for declining that finding. A five-year extended licence period was necessary to protect the public.

5. The court quashed the concurrent four-year sentences for the section 8 offences and substituted concurrent extended sentences comprising six years’ custody and five years’ extended licence. It left unchanged the absence of separate penalties for child abduction, having applied totality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On the Solicitor General’s reference, the court granted leave, held the sentences unduly lenient, and substituted concurrent extended sentences comprising six years’ custody and five years’ extended licence.
• Crown Court at Bradford On 23 May 2024, the Recorder imposed concurrent four-year sentences for the sexual offences and no separate penalty for the child-abduction counts.
• Bradford and Keighley Magistrates’ Court After guilty pleas to the sexual offences, the offender was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.