R v Jack Poulson & Ors

On an Attorney General’s reference, a sentence is not unduly lenient merely because a higher sentence could properly have been imposed. The difference must be sufficiently substantial to justify that description. In cases involving multiple sexual offences, offence-specific guidelines provide the starting point and range, while totality requires a proportionate sentence for the overall criminality. The guideline reference to a campaign of rape is a benchmark, not a technical definition, and has no upper limit. Sentencing guidelines are not a box-ticking exercise: courts must assess the real weight of culpability factors in the individual case. Delay does not ordinarily reduce sentence where it reflects investigation complexity, Covid-19 disruption or failures to admit guilt, although individual circumstances may justify mitigation.

The Court of Appeal heard nine applications by the Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning sentences imposed after a gang grooming prosecution in the Crown Court at Liverpool. The applications challenged sentences imposed on Jack Poulson, Ross Corley, Ashley Darbyshire, Cory Barrett, Brandon Harwood, Richard Haslam, Elliot Turner, James Fitzgerald and Daniel Bainbridge-Flatters. Poulson and Harwood also sought leave to appeal against sentence. Corley abandoned his application, while a separate application concerning Harvie Aspden had already been rejected for want of jurisdiction. The central issues were the effect of delay, the application of sentencing guidelines to multiple sexual offences, totality, youth and culpability, and whether any sentence was unduly lenient.

1. General approach. The court emphasised that it was not in the same position as the trial judge, who had heard the evidence and assessed the individual offenders. Respect was therefore owed to the trial judge’s sentencing judgments. A sentence was not unduly lenient merely because this court might have imposed a higher sentence.
2. Guidelines and totality. The offence-specific guideline supplied the starting point, range and adjustment for aggravating and mitigating factors. The totality guideline supplied broader guidance for multiple offences. The reference to a campaign of rape in the rape guideline was not a technical term. Where engaged, 20 years was the bottom of the appropriate range and there was no upper limit. Sexual Offences Act 2023 sections 5 to 8 did not apply because all victims were over 13.
3. Delay and culpability. The mere passage of time did not reduce sentence in these cases. The investigation was necessarily lengthy, Covid-19 caused substantial disruption, and most offenders had denied guilt or pleaded late. Corley’s early guilty pleas and the particular circumstances of his case justified substantial credit. Culpability factors were not applied mechanically. Their real weight in the individual case could justify adjustment from category 1A towards category 1B.
4. Disposition. Leave was granted in the cases of Darbyshire, Poulson, Haslam, Turner and Fitzgerald. Darbyshire’s three concurrent rape sentences were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of 18 years and six months. All other references were dismissed or leave was refused. Poulson’s application for leave to appeal was refused, Harwood’s application was refused, and all other orders remained unaffected.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: Following a trial and guilty pleas, sentences were imposed by His Honour Judge Simon Medland KC after a sentencing hearing on 28 and 29 April 2025, in case no [20247039].
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court granted leave in some cases under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It increased Darbyshire’s sentence and dismissed or refused the remaining references and applications.