R v Richard Mills

In sentencing for sexual assault, a sentencer may move outside the guideline category range where a combination of aggravating or other relevant factors justifies that course. Offending by a serving police officer at work, against fellow officers, may be a significant additional factor because it undermines public trust. Serious psychological harm short of severe harm may also justify an upward adjustment. Personal mitigation and totality must nevertheless be reflected in the final aggregate sentence. A sentence at the top of the lower category range may be excessive where those matters have been insufficiently weighed.

This was an appeal against sentence following the appellant’s conviction after trial for two sexual assaults, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 7 February 2025, the Crown Court at Liverpool imposed consecutive sentences of six and 12 months, making 18 months’ imprisonment in total. The appellant argued that the Sentencing Council guideline had been misapplied, that personal mitigation had been given insufficient weight, and that totality had not been properly applied. The central issues were whether the offences could be moved beyond category 3B and whether the resulting total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed because the total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
2. Guideline adjustment. Step 2 of the Sentencing Council guideline contained a non-exhaustive list of contextual and offender-related factors. A combination of those factors, or other relevant factors, could justify a further adjustment and, in an appropriate case, movement outside the identified category range.
3. Aggravating factors. The appellant’s status as a serving police officer, the fact that the offences were committed at work and technically while on duty, and the fact that the victims were fellow officers constituted a highly significant other relevant factor. The offending also undermined public trust in the police. The location of one assault in a police car, while the victim was driving, was capable of aggravating that offence. In relation to the other assault, the court upheld the finding of an imbalance of power arising from the appellant’s age, supervisory and mentoring role, and the victim’s relative inexperience. The court also applied the principle in R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865; [2019] 2 Cr App R (S) 44, that psychological harm short of severe harm may justify an upward adjustment where it is significantly greater than ordinarily seen in the offence.
4. Application to the counts. The combination of factors justified moving outside category 3B for count 4, which was the more serious offence. It did not justify moving outside category 3B for count 2. The six-month sentence on count 2 was at the top of that range and should have been reduced to reflect personal mitigation.
5. Mitigation and totality. Although the judge had considered good character and the passage of time, the latter was of reduced weight because delay was partly attributable to the culture of non-reporting. The appellant’s dismissal, possible loss of his police pension, his wife’s loss of employment, and the potential effect on the family home were additional personal consequences. Those matters, together with totality, required a greater reduction.
6. Orders. The sentences were quashed and replaced by four months’ imprisonment on count 2 and nine months’ imprisonment on count 4, to run consecutively, making 13 months in total. The victim surcharge record was amended from £156 to £100.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 31 July 2025, the court allowed the sentence appeal and substituted consecutive sentences totalling 13 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1285.
2. Crown Court at Liverpool — On 7 February 2025, His Honour Judge Swinnerton sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment following convictions entered on 20 December 2024.