R v Morgan Thomas

On a reference concerning an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the Court of Appeal must assess the sentence in the round. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.

An offender over 18 should not automatically be sentenced as an adult where evidence demonstrates continuing immaturity. A child may be particularly vulnerable without having been specifically targeted. Exploiting a situation involving a child known to be vulnerable is not the same as specific targeting. Clear evidence of continuing risk should prompt consideration of dangerousness and an extended determinate sentence, even if the parties have not raised the issue.

The Solicitor General referred the offender’s total sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The offender had pleaded guilty to sexual activity with two 15-year-old girls, distributing an indecent image of a child, breach of a sexual risk order and possession of a bladed article. The Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent imposed a total sentence of five years and four months’ detention.

The reference challenged the categorisation and weighting of the offences involving C and N, the reduction for the guilty pleas, and the failure to consider dangerousness and an extended determinate sentence. The issues were whether the sentence fell outside the reasonable sentencing range and whether the sentence should be restructured without increasing its overall length.

1. Unduly lenient sentence. Leave to refer was granted. The test remained that stated in Attorney General's Reference Number 4 of 1989, [1991] WLR 41: a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The Court had to assess the sentence in the round. Unsatisfactory sentencing remarks or inadequate weight given to relevant factors did not necessarily make the sentence unduly lenient, since the Court could itself give those factors proper weight.
2. Youth and maturity. The principle in R v Clarke, [2018] EWCA Crim 185, applied. Reaching 18 was not a cliff edge for sentencing purposes. The offender’s immaturity substantially reduced his culpability, and his sentence was not to be assessed as though he were a fully mature adult.
3. Offence involving C. The category 1A categorisation was correct. The offender knew that C was a vulnerable child and continued the abuse, including filming her. An adult of reasonable maturity would have warranted a sentence exceeding five years before plea reduction, but the offender’s immaturity justified a sentence of about four years before a 10 per cent plea reduction.
4. Offence involving N. N met the guideline description of a particularly vulnerable child, but the offender had not specifically targeted her. He had exploited a situation which arose when he realised that she was vulnerable; that was not the same as specific targeting. The offence was nevertheless at the upper end of category 1B, close to two years’ custody, having regard to the offender being on bail, the location, and N’s psychological harm. As N had already been cross-examined under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 several months before the plea, the reduction for the plea should have been negligible.
5. Totality and dangerousness. Sentences could not be aggregated purely arithmetically. The appropriate total custodial term, after a just and proportionate adjustment, was 73 months. The sentence imposed, equivalent to 64 months, was lenient but not unduly so. However, the sentencing judge should have addressed dangerousness and considered an extended determinate sentence, despite the parties’ failure to raise the issue, because the pre-sentence and psychiatric material showed a clear and continuing risk to young girls. The Court concluded that the offender was dangerous and that an extended determinate sentence was appropriate.
6. Restructuring. Because no individual sentence reached the four-year threshold, the sentence was restructured without increasing its overall custodial severity. The bladed article sentence of ten months was to be served first. The sentence on count 2 became four years and six months, with the eight-month sentence on count 5 concurrent. The custodial term was four years and six months, followed by an extended licence of three years. The 24-month sentence on count 4 ran concurrently. The overall length of the sentence was not otherwise increased.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On a reference by the Solicitor General, leave was granted. The sentence was held to be lenient but not unduly lenient. The Court nevertheless restructured it as an extended determinate sentence without increasing its overall length.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent On 27 September 2024, the offender was sentenced to a total of five years and four months’ detention for the relevant offences.