R v Colin Hoffman

In sentencing appeals, the appropriate comparison is with the applicable Sentencing Council guideline and the particular facts of the offence. Sentences imposed for wholly different offences, governed by different guidelines and factual considerations, do not assist in deciding whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Where the sentencing judge has considered the offending, all relevant mitigation and personal circumstances, and totality, and has imposed the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offending, an appeal is not reasonably arguable on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

After a jury trial in the Crown Court at Guildford, the applicant was convicted of two offences of arranging the commission of a child sex offence, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received concurrent sentences of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 20-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and consequential orders.

He renewed his application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order. He argued that greater allowance should have been made for the limited advancement of his plans, the absence of direct grooming or sexual images, his personal characteristics and good character. He also relied on press reports of other cases, his mental health, prison conditions and limited rehabilitation courses.

1. Applications refused. The renewed applications for an extension of time to appeal against sentence and for legal representation were refused.
2. The sentences were governed by the applicable Sentencing Council guidelines. Both offences fell within category 1A, with a five-year starting point. The sentencing judge was entitled to reduce that starting point to reflect the applicant’s personal mitigation, good character, the fact that the plans were not far advanced, and totality.
3. Sentences for wholly different offences were not relevant comparators because those offences had their own guidelines and particular facts. The press cuttings therefore provided no assistance on whether these sentences were manifestly excessive.
4. The sentencing judge had taken into account all the mitigation, the facts of the offences and the totality principle, and had imposed the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offending. For the reasons given by the single judge, with which the court agreed, it was not reasonably arguable that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

• Crown Court at Guildford: Following conviction after trial on 14 December 2022, the applicant was sentenced on 13 April 2023 to concurrent terms of three years and nine months’ imprisonment. A 20-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and consequential orders were also made.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence and for legal representation were refused.