R v Lucy Wilding

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a refusal to suspend custody where the sentencing judge considered the applicable guideline and balanced the relevant factors, unless the conclusion was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Repeated sexual offending over time and continuing after a warning to stop may aggravate seriousness and support a finding of risk to the public. Rehabilitation need not be addressed in separate express terms where the judge’s remarks show that it was considered in relation to reoffending risk and outweighed by the seriousness of the offending. A technical error in describing the custodial order may be corrected without altering its duration.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to two counts of sexual activity with a child and two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. She received concurrent 18-month custodial terms. The sentencing judge treated the offending as involving the highest harm category, identified repeated offending and failure to heed a warning as aggravating features, and declined to suspend the sentence.

The appellant did not challenge the sentence length. She argued that the judge had given insufficient weight to her age, immaturity, mitigation and rehabilitation, and had placed excessive weight on the risk of reoffending. The central issue was whether the refusal to suspend the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed only to correct the technical form of the custodial order. The concurrent 18-month terms remained unchanged.

1. Refusal to suspend. The sentencing judge had the Imposition Guideline in mind and had balanced the appellant’s youth, lack of previous offending, positive personal circumstances, mental health and other mitigation against the seriousness of the offending and the assessed risk of reoffending. The conclusion that only immediate custody was justified was properly open to her.
2. Aggravating features and public risk. The offending was serious because it involved penetration. Its seriousness was aggravated by its repetition over about four months and, very significantly, by the appellant’s failure to stop the relationship after the complainant’s mother had warned her to do so. It was reasonable to infer from those features that the appellant posed a risk to the public.
3. Rehabilitation. Although the sentencing judge did not address rehabilitation expressly, her remarks showed that she had considered it in connection with the perceived risk of reoffending. She was entitled to conclude that rehabilitation prospects were outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.
4. Technical correction. Given the appellant’s age at sentence, the court corrected the order from terms of imprisonment to detention in a young offender institution. The immediate concurrent terms of 18 months on all four counts remained unaltered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1285, the appeal was allowed only to correct the form of the custodial order. The sentence was otherwise upheld.
• Liverpool Crown Court: The appellant was sentenced to concurrent 18-month custodial terms for four offences.