R v Colin Turner

When sentencing for arranging or facilitating a child sex offence, the judge must have regard to the offence that would have been committed. The applicable sentencing guideline treats absence of previous convictions as a mitigating factor, distinct from positive character.

The absence of aggravating features does not itself justify a further reduction. Low risk of reoffending and ordinary physical or mental ill-health are not necessarily separate mitigating factors. Failure to apply the guideline is an error of principle requiring appellate correction, even where the appropriate reduction is modest.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the Recorder had failed to give sufficient weight to his lack of previous convictions and other matters, including the absence of predatory features, low risk of reoffending, and physical and mental ill-health. The central issue was whether those matters required a further reduction in sentence.

Appeal allowed to a limited extent.

1. For an offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the sentencing judge must have regard to the offence that would have been committed. In this case, that was sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9 of the Act.
2. The applicable sentencing guideline identifies absence of previous convictions as a mitigating factor. First-time offenders generally present a lower risk of reoffending and are normally regarded as less blameworthy than repeat offenders. The guideline’s treatment of first-time offenders is distinct from its treatment of positive character or exemplary conduct, which does not generally attract mitigation for the relevant section 9 offence. The Recorder therefore erred in refusing any reduction for the appellant’s lack of previous convictions.
3. The absence of other aggravating features is not, without more, a mitigating factor giving an entitlement to a further discount. The absence of predatory behaviour, grooming, abuse of trust, exploitation, further offending, or other evidence of an interest in sexual activity with children either showed only that aggravating features were absent or added nothing to the mitigation already arising from the lack of previous convictions. The suggested opportunistic nature of the offence was not accepted. Low risk of reoffending was likewise not a separate mitigating factor. The appellant’s physical and mental ill-health did not provide significant mitigation on the evidence.
4. Failure to make a reduction required by the guideline was an error of principle. The Court therefore quashed the sentence of 33 months and substituted a sentence of 29 months. The appeal was allowed to that limited extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1455, the appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence was reduced from 33 months to 29 months.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The appellant was convicted on 13 September 2024 and sentenced on 8 November 2024 to 33 months’ imprisonment.