R v John Peter Noble

In an appeal against sentence, the assessment of whether a concurrent sentence for multiple sexual offences is manifestly excessive must consider the offending as a whole. The court must give effect to totality, but separate offences do not necessarily overlap merely because they concerned one proposed victim and one planned visit. Where an offender is convicted under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2023 and no real child exists, the reduction for the absence of a child is fact-specific. It may be very small where the offender was stopped only at a late stage, after making concrete arrangements to commit the intended abuse. A single extended sentence may lawfully reflect the totality of the offending.

The appellant appealed against the custodial element of an extended sentence imposed by the Honorary Recorder of York for nine current sexual offences, together with the activation of suspended sentences for four earlier sexual offences. The current offences comprised eight offences of arranging the commission of a child sex offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2023 and attempting to breach a sexual harm prevention order under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

The sentence was an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising 10 years’ custody and four years’ extended licence. The appellant argued that the custodial term was excessive, including because the intended abuse involved no real child, the suspended sentences and breach offence may have been double counted, and the reduction for the absence of a real child was insufficient. The central question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 10-year custodial term was not manifestly excessive and was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.
2. The eight section 14 offences involved separate, serious and planned sexual acts against a very young proposed victim. Their common victim and single proposed visit did not mean that the offences overlapped for totality purposes. The applicable starting points and the number of offences justified a substantial overall sentence, notwithstanding concurrency.
3. The reduction for the absence of a real child was fact-specific. The sentencing guideline directs the court to identify harm by reference to the sexual activity intended and then make a downward adjustment for the absence of actual or lesser harm. Where the offender is stopped only at a late stage, or would otherwise have carried out the intended activity, only a very small reduction will usually be appropriate. The reduction made here was substantial when assessed together with totality.
4. The sentence had to be assessed as a whole, including the activated suspended sentences and the penalty for attempting to breach the sexual harm prevention order. The court rejected the proposed arithmetic approach of separately adding those components after reducing the sentence for the current offences.
5. A single extended sentence reflecting the totality of the offending was lawful. The record should be amended, if necessary, to reflect the individual sentences correctly: an extended sentence of 14 years for each section 14 offence, two years’ imprisonment concurrent for the order breach, and activated suspended sentences reduced to 18 months and concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — R v John Peter Noble [2024] EWCA Crim 399: appeal against the custodial element dismissed. The record was directed to be amended as necessary to reflect the individual sentences.
• Sentencing court — The Honorary Recorder of York imposed an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising 10 years’ custody and four years’ extended licence, and activated earlier suspended sentences.