R v Paul Wright

Sentencing for linked sexual offences must reflect totality. A court may treat one offence as the lead count, impose a concurrent sentence for another, and increase the lead sentence to produce a just overall term. The overall sentence need not remain within the guideline range for the lead offence where the additional offence is not wholly subsumed within that categorisation. An adult who assumes responsibility for children and uses that position to facilitate sexual conduct may commit an abuse of trust. Immediate custody may be required where the offending, relevant sexual convictions, failed compliance with a suspended sentence and continuing risk to children make a suspended sentence inappropriate.

R v Paul Wright concerned sexual offending against a 10-year-old child. The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to sexual communication with the child. He was later convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child under 13 arising from prolonged sexualised conduct in a swimming pool.

The Crown Court imposed 28 months’ imprisonment for the assault and a concurrent ten-month term for the communication offence. It also made a 20-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the lead sentence and total term were manifestly excessive and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issue was whether the 28-month total sentence properly reflected the totality of both offences.

Decision

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the Recorder was entitled to categorise the sexual assault as Category 3A. The appellant had acquired the child’s trust and was effectively left responsible for the children at the pool. His conduct therefore involved an actual abuse of trust. The sustained nature of the sexualised contact could in fact have supported Category 2 offending.
2. For the assault considered alone, the aggravating features and relevant previous sexual convictions justified a sentence close to the top of the Category 3 range, namely 24 months’ imprisonment. For the communication offence, persistence, disregard of warnings and the previous convictions justified a sentence close to 12 months before guilty-plea credit.
3. The Recorder was nevertheless sentencing for two serious sexual offences. Consecutive sentences totalling 34 months could have been imposed without criticism. The Recorder instead used the assault as the lead offence, imposed a concurrent sentence for the communication offence, and increased the lead term to reflect totality. The communication offence was not wholly subsumed in the Category 3A assessment of the assault. A total term of 28 months was therefore not manifestly excessive, although another judge might have made a greater reduction for totality.
4. Immediate custody was appropriate. The appellant’s relevant sexual history, poor compliance with an earlier suspended sentence and continuing risk to young children meant that only an immediate custodial sentence was suitable.
5. The court also noted that, because of the 20-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, the notification requirements under Sexual Offences Act 2003 operated for 20 years rather than the recorded ten-year period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the 28-month custodial sentence.
• Crown Court at Southampton The appellant pleaded guilty on 29 August 2023 to sexual communication with a child. On 8 August 2024, a jury convicted him of sexual assault of a child under 13. On 8 October 2024, Mr Recorder James Watson KC imposed 28 months’ imprisonment on the assault count, with ten months concurrently for the communication count, and made a 20-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.