R v Lewis Stacey

Deliberate falsehoods about an offender’s name and age, coupled with knowledge of a very young complainant’s age, may demonstrate planning or an element of grooming for sentencing purposes. The conduct may therefore properly be placed within, or on the cusp of, higher culpability even if it does not display a typical pattern of grooming.

A mental impairment reduces culpability only where there is a sufficient connection between the impairment and the offending. Absent that connection, immaturity, autism, ADHD and particular vulnerability in custody may nevertheless be treated as mitigation when fixing the overall sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to four counts of rape of a 12-year-old complainant. He had used a false name and gave inconsistent false accounts of his age before meeting her. He was sentenced to a special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising seven years and six months’ custody and a further year on licence.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence. He contended that the offending should have been placed in culpability Category B rather than on the cusp of Categories A and B, and that insufficient weight had been given to his low intellectual functioning, autism, ADHD and difficulties in custody.

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s conduct as planned, or as involving an element of grooming. The appellant had lied about both his name and age, knew that the complainant was only 12, and knew that his conduct was wrong and punishable. Those facts justified placing culpability on the cusp of Category A, or within Category A, even though the grooming was not typical of this type of offending.

3. The court upheld the judge’s approach to the appellant’s psychological and developmental difficulties. Paragraph 11 of the mental health guideline permits a reduction in culpability only where there is a sufficient connection between the impairment or disorder and the offending behaviour. The evidence did not establish that connection.

4. The appellant’s immaturity, autism, ADHD and low intellectual functioning nonetheless provided some explanation, though no excuse, for the offending. His likely difficulty in prison was also relevant mitigation. The judge had properly reflected those matters by reducing the notional sentence before credit for the guilty pleas.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 141.

• Sheffield Crown Court — following guilty pleas to four counts of rape, imposed a special custodial sentence of eight years and six months under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020.