R v Danielle Louise Edney

On a sentencing appeal involving a possible extended sentence, the court must first apply the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines and determine the just and proportionate determinate sentence. It must then decide whether the statutory threshold for an extended sentence is met. Perceived future danger cannot justify starting from the assumption that an extended sentence is required. Where an impairment or disorder is sufficiently connected to offending, it must be considered at Step 1 of the offence-specific guideline and its effect on culpability must be assessed and stated. Sentences must avoid double counting communications forming the grooming element of attempted meetings. A decoy victim remains relevant to sentence, but any reduction must reflect persistent attempts to arrange contact. The appropriate sentence here fell below the threshold for an extended sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Lewes to two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and two counts of attempting to meet a girl under 16 following grooming. On 28 July 2023 she received a nine-year extended sentence on the lead count, comprising four years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, with concurrent determinate sentences on the other counts.

She sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal refused the application concerning conviction but granted the necessary extension and leave concerning sentence. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had applied the relevant guidelines in the correct sequence, properly reflected the appellant’s autism and learning difficulties in culpability, avoided double counting, and correctly determined whether an extended sentence was available.

The court refused the extension of time required for the conviction appeal and dismissed that appeal. It granted the necessary extension of time and leave to appeal sentence, allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the nine-year extended sentence and replaced it with a determinate sentence of three years and two months. All other sentences and orders remained in force.

1. The sentencing judge had to begin by applying the relevant guidelines and identifying the appropriate sentence. Only then could the court decide whether an extended sentence was available. An extended sentence required a just and proportionate sentence of at least four years. The judge had instead appeared to begin from the perceived danger posed by the appellant and the need for an extended sentence [19], [28].
2. The relevant framework comprised the offence-specific guidelines for meeting a child after grooming and sexual communication with a child, the Mental Disorders Guideline and the Totality Guideline. A lead offence could be selected, but the communication offences forming the grooming element of the attempted meetings could not be counted again as separate criminality. Aggravating features arising from the communications could nevertheless be considered in sentencing the arranging-to-meet offences [20].
3. Under the Mental Disorders Guideline, a disorder sufficiently connected with the offending operates at Step 1 in assessing culpability, rather than merely as general mitigation. The sentencer must assess and state the reason for, and extent of, any reduction. Expert evidence must be considered, although the sentencer must reach an independent decision [24]-[26]. The judge had correctly found that autism and learning difficulties reduced culpability, but had not stated the extent of that reduction and appeared to have treated it only as mitigation [25].
4. The appellant’s offending fell within category 2. The reduction in culpability did not justify moving to a lower category, but placed the offending towards the lower end of the middle-category range. The court also allowed measured weight for the absence of real child victims, while taking account of the persistence of the attempts. False persona and age difference could not materially aggravate the sentence again where those matters were already reflected in the guideline or were inherent in this type of offending [26]-[27].
5. Reassessing the sentence, the court considered that the first set of offences warranted no more than 18 months after trial and the second set no more than two and a half years after trial. After a 20 per cent guilty plea reduction, the resulting term was three years and two months. That was below the four-year threshold, so an extended sentence was unavailable despite the future risk identified by the sentencing judge [27]-[28].

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1247, refused an extension of time for the conviction appeal and dismissed it; granted an extension of time and leave for the sentence appeal, allowed that appeal, and substituted a determinate sentence of three years and two months.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 28 July 2023, following guilty pleas, imposed a nine-year extended sentence on count 4, comprising four years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, with concurrent determinate sentences on counts 1 to 3.