R v Leslie Thornton

In sentencing for breach of a sexual harm prevention order, the assessment of risk must reflect the evidence and the offender’s history. Serious probation concerns and deliberate deception may aggravate the breach, but a concern that the offender may have orchestrated access to children does not, without more, establish the highest risk category. Where the facts properly fall within the lower of two high-culpability guideline categories, the sentence must be adjusted accordingly. A late guilty plea may justify a limited reduction even when entered on the trial date.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Sheffield to two failures to comply with notification requirements and one breach of a sexual harm prevention order. He had lived frequently at the home of his former partner, TX, while her children and other children were present. He had also failed to notify the police of that address and later failed to make an annual notification on time.

The sentencing judge treated the breach as category A1 under the relevant Sentencing Council Breach Guideline and imposed a total sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment. The appellant challenged the category, the finding that he had targeted TX’s daughter, the terms of the order, and the assessment of his previous compliance.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The sentence of 43 months for breach of the sexual harm prevention order was quashed and replaced by 32 months. The concurrent sentences and all other orders remained unchanged.

2. The judge was entitled to take account of the pre-sentence report, the appellant’s prior history, his deception concerning notification requirements, and his concealment of his residence when assessing risk and aggravation. Those matters supported a serious assessment of risk.

3. However, the evidence did not establish that the appellant had sought unsupervised contact with the children, contacted either child separately, or specifically targeted TX’s daughter. His phones disclosed no further concern. The concern that he may have conducted the relationship so as to obtain access to children was no more than a concern.

4. Properly analysed, the history and present offending placed the breach in category A2 rather than A1. The repeated pursuit of the relationship despite the earlier recall, and deliberate notification failures, remained aggravating features. A notional sentence after trial of four years was therefore excessive; the proper notional sentence was three years. A 10 per cent reduction, rounded slightly upwards for the late plea, produced 32 months.

5. The court declined to comment on the terms of the sexual harm prevention order. There had been no appeal against its terms and no application to the Crown Court to vary them. The order remained unaltered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment for the 43-month sentence imposed for breach of the sexual harm prevention order.
• Crown Court at Sheffield On 24 January 2024, imposed a total sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to notification offences and breach of a sexual harm prevention order.