R v Steven Palmer

A guideline-based sentence for sexual assault requires a proper assessment of harm and culpability. Severe psychological harm and the use or threat of violence place harm in Category 1. Multiple harm features in a particularly grave case may justify an upward adjustment from the starting point.

Significant planning may be inferred from conduct immediately preceding the attack, including following the victim and concealing oneself while preparing to attack. A disputed and insufficiently established allegation of earlier conduct must be left out of account. A sentence appeal will be dismissed where, despite its severity, the sentence is not manifestly excessive after proper application of the guideline and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

The appellant pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in a park. He followed her, hid behind trees, attacked her from behind, restrained her and committed a serious sexual assault before members of the public intervened.

On 11 May 2023, the Crown Court at Canterbury imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years, comprising six years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period. The sentencing judge treated the offence as Category 1A under the Sentencing Council guideline for sexual assault and found the appellant dangerous within the meaning of the Sentencing Code.

The appellant challenged the finding of significant planning and contended that the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Extension of time and leave. The court granted a 33-day extension of time and leave to appeal. The appellant had attempted to resolve the matter through the slip rule, which was inappropriate but explained the short delay.

2. Guideline categorisation. The offence properly fell within Category 1 for harm. The victim had suffered severe and long-lasting psychological harm, and the assault involved violence or the threat of violence. The presence of both harm features made the case particularly grave and permitted an upward adjustment from the Category 1 starting point.

3. Significant planning. The sentencing judge was not entitled to rely on the disputed suggestion that the appellant had been in the park on earlier days. The sole witness could not identify the appellant with sufficient certainty, so that allegation had to be excluded. However, the remaining evidence showed significant planning: the appellant was in the park as darkness fell, followed a lone child, hid behind trees and prepared before attacking. The judge was therefore entitled to place culpability in Category A.

4. Sentence and dangerousness. Separate aggravating features included the deliberate targeting of a vulnerable child, the isolated setting and timing, and offending while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Remorse attracted limited mitigation. A pre-sentence report and the nature of the offending supported the finding that the appellant was dangerous within the meaning of the Sentencing Code. An eight-year custodial term before the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction was severe, but it was not manifestly excessive. The extended determinate sentence of nine years was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, then dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 351.
• Crown Court at Canterbury — on 11 May 2023 imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years for sexual assault, comprising six years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.