R v Marley Connor Jones

In sentencing blackmail, the amount demanded does not determine seriousness. A threat falsely to expose a victim as a paedophile may be extremely serious, particularly where accompanied by repeated demands, abuse, threats to damage property or uninvited entry with another person.

Where there is no offence-specific guideline, the sentencing judge may apply the overarching sentencing principles and assess culpability, harm, mitigation and the purposes of sentencing. The decision whether immediate custody is required involves evaluative judgment. An appellate court will not interfere where the judge addressed the relevant guideline factors and the conclusion was open on the facts.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Burnley to blackmail. He had threatened to expose the victim falsely as a paedophile and demanded money, including after attending the victim’s home with another man. The sentencing judge imposed 16 months’ imprisonment, following a 30-month starting point, reduction for mitigation and credit for the guilty plea.

The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether immediate custody was justified in light of the sentencing guideline factors and the appellant’s personal mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and the conclusion that immediate custody was required was open to the sentencing judge.
2. Although the sums demanded were small, the threat falsely to expose the victim as a paedophile was extremely serious. The seriousness was aggravated by the repeated demands, abuse, threats of property damage, and the appellant’s attendance at the victim’s home with another man, followed by uninvited entry.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to adopt a substantial starting point of 30 months before mitigation. The comparison with MJC [2015] EWCA Crim 1519 showed that case to be less serious because the threats lasted for a short period and the victim was reassured shortly afterwards. Attorney General’s Reference (O'Sullivan) [2021] EWCA Crim 248 was more serious and involved particularly compelling personal mitigation. Neither case dictated the sentence in the present circumstances.
4. On suspension, the judge expressly considered the Imposition Guideline and relevant matters including danger to the public, compliance history, rehabilitation prospects and the appellant’s young family. The judge was required to assess and balance those matters against culpability, harm and the need for appropriate punishment. The appellant’s mitigation was not compelling, and the decision that punishment required immediate custody was properly open to the judge.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 783, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Burnley — The appellant pleaded guilty to blackmail and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.