R v Darren Hugh Hollywood

For a category A offence involving distribution of indecent images of children, the sentencing guideline starting point was three years’ custody. The sentence could properly be increased for aggravating features including the number and nature of the images, their period of possession, security measures, moving images and multiple counts. A single distribution, its solicited context, remorse, rehabilitative work and absence of similar convictions were relevant mitigation, but their weight was for the sentencing judge. An appeal will fail where the notional sentence after trial falls within the reasonable range open to the judge and proper credit has been given for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Portsmouth to offences contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The lead count concerned the distribution of five category A, B and C images during an online conversation. The appellant also possessed numerous other images, including category A images and moving images.

The Crown Court imposed 30 months’ imprisonment, based on a notional sentence of 40 months after trial and a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea. With leave, the appellant appealed on the grounds that the notional sentence was manifestly excessive and that his mitigation justified a lower or suspended sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence fell outside the reasonable range available to the sentencing judge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 30-month sentence was not manifestly excessive. The consequential notification and disclosure orders were not in issue.
2. Starting point and aggravation. The Court held that three years’ custody was the correct guideline starting point for the lead category A distribution offence. The sentencing judge was entitled, and in the circumstances required, to move upwards from that starting point. Relevant aggravating features included the use of security software, the young age and vulnerability of some children, the pain and distress shown, the lengthy period of possession, moving as well as still images, and the existence of multiple counts. The other counts aggravated the lead offence.
3. Mitigation. The Crown Court had taken account of the single occasion of distribution, the fact that it was solicited by another person, the appellant’s remorse, his work with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the absence of similar previous convictions. The psychiatric and childhood difficulties recorded in the pre-sentence report were not expressly addressed in detail, but their nature and extent were not particularly unusual in this context. The mitigation was not sufficiently weighty to displace the sentence.
4. Appellate review. The 40-month notional sentence after trial lay within the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge. The 25 per cent guilty plea reduction was undisputed. The sentence therefore did not meet the threshold of being manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal with leave, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 591.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: Following guilty pleas, His Honour Judge Ashworth imposed 30 months’ imprisonment on 16 February 2024, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.