R v Terry James Pocock

For an attempt to incite a child to sexual activity, sentence is assessed by reference to the sexual activity intended. Where the child does not exist but the offender would otherwise have carried out the offence, the absence of actual harm ordinarily warrants only a modest reduction within the applicable category range. No further reduction is made merely because the offence is an attempt.

Personal mitigation must be genuinely compelling before it can justify a substantial departure from the relevant sentencing guideline. A guilty plea entered after the fixed trial date normally attracts credit of about 10 per cent.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Ipswich to attempting to incite a person whom he believed to be a 13-year-old girl to engage in penetrative sexual activity. The supposed child was an adult operating a false online profile. The offending comprised sustained and explicit online attempts to arrange sexual intercourse.

On 1 March 2024, the Crown Court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was the proper application of the sentencing guideline to serious attempted incitement where no actual child existed, and the proper allowance for mitigation and a late guilty plea.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The 24-month suspended sentence was unduly lenient to a significant extent and failed to reflect the gravity of the persistent incitement of a child believed to be 13 years old to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse.
2. Under the guideline applicable to section 10 offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the court had to identify harm by reference to the intended sexual activity. Intended vaginal intercourse placed the offence in harm category 1. The significant age disparity was a culpability A feature. The resulting category 1A range was four to 10 years’ custody, with a five-year starting point.
3. A starting point of four years was appropriate. The fact that no actual child existed and no harm was caused justified a reduction to three-and-a-half years. It did not justify a large departure from the guideline. The offender would have carried out the intended activity but for the false profile and intervention of others. The guideline also allowed no additional reduction merely because the offence was an attempt.
4. The offender’s mental health difficulties, substance misuse history and recent efforts to improve his circumstances were not sufficiently compelling to justify the sentence imposed, particularly given the assessed high risk of serious harm and his record of repeated offending and non-compliance with orders.
5. The guilty plea was entered after the original trial date had passed. Applying R v Carter [2021] EWCA Crim 667, credit of about 10 per cent was appropriate. The court allowed a five-month reduction from 42 months, producing a sentence of 37 months’ immediate imprisonment. Suspension did not arise.
6. The original sentence was quashed and replaced with 37 months’ imprisonment. The remaining orders stood subject to amendments to the Sexual Harm Prevention Order, clarification that it lasts 10 years, and correction of the victim surcharge. The longer custodial sentence also made the notification period indefinite.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court quashed the suspended sentence and substituted 37 months’ immediate imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Ipswich: On 1 March 2024, the offender was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, following his guilty plea.