R v Robbie Coils

Where dismissal is itself a substantial punishment, a Service Community Order may properly be directed solely to rehabilitation. Its duration must be assessed by reference to the time needed for the rehabilitative requirements that are most suitable for the offender. It should not be treated as a punitive term mechanically reduced for a guilty plea.

Notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are statutory consequences of a qualifying conviction and sentence. They do not form part of the sentence and are not independently appealable.

The applicant, a former Royal Air Force Corporal, pleaded guilty before the Court-Martial to a service offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, namely voyeurism contrary to section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received dismissal from His Majesty’s Armed Forces and a two-year Service Community Order containing treatment and rehabilitation requirements.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence. He accepted that dismissal could not be challenged, but contended that the order was manifestly excessive and should have lasted less than 12 months. The central issue was whether the rehabilitative order, its duration, and the associated notification requirements rendered the total sentence excessive.

1. The court refused leave to appeal against sentence. The Court-Martial had selected the correct guideline starting point and had properly identified the aggravating and mitigating features. In the Service context, the sexual nature of the offending and the difference in rank were significant. The applicant’s exemplary record, early guilty plea, deletion of the image, and the absence of sharing were also properly treated as substantial mitigation.

2. Dismissal was inevitable and was a substantial punishment in its own right. The Court-Martial was entitled to conclude that no additional punitive element was required. The Service Community Order was instead directed at rehabilitation, through requirements assessed as suitable for that purpose.

3. The order’s two-year duration was not a three-year punitive order reduced by one-third for the guilty plea. The duration principally reflected the period considered appropriate for the suitable rehabilitative requirements to be completed. A period of less than one year could not realistically have been sufficient for those requirements.

4. The court explained that the punitive effect of a community order or Service Community Order depends on the circumstances and on which statutory sentencing purpose is prioritised under section 57 of the Sentencing Code. On the facts, the order was expressly rehabilitative and did not add punishment to dismissal.

5. The notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were statutory consequences of the conviction and qualifying sentence. They were not part of the sentence imposed by the Court-Martial and could not themselves be challenged on an appeal against sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 1681, refused the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.
• Military Court at Catterick — on 7 June 2024, imposed dismissal and a two-year Service Community Order after the applicant’s guilty plea to voyeurism.