R v Peter Stanley

Where no offence-specific sentencing guideline exists, seriousness is assessed by culpability and harm under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Deliberately seeking, endorsing and sharing extreme animal-torture material can demonstrate high culpability and considerable harm, even without payment to the perpetrators. Sharing through a private social-media group remains aggravating because it can stimulate the market and encourage further production. Sentences remain fact-specific, and appellate intervention is not justified merely because another judge might give greater weight to personal mitigation. Suspension is an evaluative decision for the sentencing judge. Guideline factors are not counted mechanically, and strong mitigation may be outweighed by the need for immediate punishment.

Following guilty pleas, the applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Liverpool to concurrent terms totalling 20 months’ imprisonment for three offences of publishing obscene articles, contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The articles were videos depicting the torture and killing of baby monkeys, uploaded to a Facebook group. The Registrar referred the application for leave to appeal against sentence to the Full Court. The applicant challenged the starting point, the weight given to personal mitigation and the refusal to suspend the sentence. The central issues were the proper assessment of seriousness without an offence-specific guideline and whether immediate custody was necessary.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment, imposed concurrently for the three offences after full one-third credit for guilty pleas, was fully justified.
2. In the absence of an offence-specific guideline or previous guidance from the court, the court applied the general Sentencing Council guideline and the seriousness test in section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020. That required assessment of culpability and the harm caused, intended or foreseeably caused. Given the growing prevalence of this offending, deterrence also had significant weight.
3. The applicant’s culpability was high because he deliberately sought out the material and enthusiastically endorsed it when sharing it. The harm was considerable. Sharing the material, even with a private Facebook group, aggravated the offending because it stimulated the market and encouraged those producing and supplying the videos. An analogy could properly be drawn with the principles concerning downloaded images of children being abused, as explained in Richardson [2016] EWCA Crim 146.
4. The Animal Cruelty guideline was an imperfect analogy and had not influenced the sentencing judge. The court declined to give general guidance on sentencing levels, emphasising that each case was fact-specific. The judge was entitled to take 33 months as the starting point and to decide the weight of personal mitigation. A possible alternative reduction by another judge did not make the resulting sentence manifestly excessive.
5. The guidance in Ali (Arie) [2023] EWCA Crim 232 did not assist. That case involved exceptional features, including long delays and a six-month custodial term, with prison conditions only an additional factor. Under the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, the sentencing judge had to weigh the factors for and against suspension. The exercise was not a numerical one. The realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation were properly considered but were outweighed by the seriousness of the offending and the need for immediate custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 10 December 2024, the Full Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 25 September 2024, HHJ Ian Harris sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms totalling 20 months’ imprisonment for three offences under section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, allowing full credit for guilty pleas.