R v Trevor Cator

[2024] EWCA Crim 775

Case details

Case citations
[2024] EWCA Crim 775
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
20 June 2024
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Sexual offences
Keywords
renewed application for leave to appeal sentence appeal late guilty plea credit for guilty plea manifestly excessive sentence voyeurism child victims relevant previous convictions
Outcome
application refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A late guilty plea attracts only the credit properly available at that stage. Alleged weaknesses in the prosecution case do not justify withholding a prompt plea where the offender knew that he had committed the offence.

In assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the court may treat the age of child victims, the serious effect of the offending, and directly relevant previous convictions as substantial aggravating features. Those features may justify a sentence at the top of the applicable range.

Factual background

The applicant pleaded guilty at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to attempting to observe persons doing a private act. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

At Norwich Crown Court, he received 18 months’ imprisonment for an attempted voyeurism offence contrary to section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence, contending that his guilty-plea credit was insufficient and that the judge had increased the guideline starting point excessively.

Held

  1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The grounds were not arguable.

  2. The applicant received the 10 per cent credit to which he was entitled for his late guilty plea. Any alleged shortcomings in the prosecution case did not excuse his failure to enter a prompt plea to an offence which he knew he had committed.

  3. The sentencing judge was entitled to increase the sentence from the guideline starting point. The attempted voyeurism involved very young victims, had caused them serious harm, and was committed by an offender with relevant previous convictions for voyeurism.

  4. Although the 18-month sentence was at the top of the applicable range, those aggravating features meant that there was no arguable basis for saying that it was manifestly excessive.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against the 18-month sentence.

  • Crown Court at Norwich: on 26 February 2024 sentenced the applicant to 18 months’ imprisonment.

  • Norwich Magistrates’ Court: following a late guilty plea, committed the applicant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application refused

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.