R v Ryan Cunningham-Phillips

A sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive where it falls within the range open to the sentencing judge and the sentencing remarks show that relevant matters were considered. The totality principle does not require the particular concurrent or consecutive structure proposed by an offender. It is sufficient that the overall sentence properly reflects the gravity of the offending. There is no material double counting where aggravating factors, including breach of trust and relevant previous convictions, have been appropriately considered. Appellate intervention is therefore unwarranted where the sentence is within range and the alleged errors are not demonstrated.

The applicant pleaded guilty to seven offences involving sexual activity in the presence of a child, indecent images of children and voyeurism. On 23 October 2024, the Crown Court at Southampton sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, following an adjustment on 16 December 2024. The sentence comprised consecutive terms relating to the offending against two identified children and other indecent-image offences, with other sentences concurrent.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, arguing that the sentence failed to reflect totality, that relevant factors had been double counted, and that insufficient weight had been given to the timing of the offending, his desistance, mitigation and constructive use of custody.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Manifest excess. The Court considered whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive. The sentence was within the range open to the sentencing judge. The sentencing remarks demonstrated that the relevant matters raised by the applicant had been taken into account. The sentence was therefore not arguably manifestly excessive.
2. Totality and sentence structure. The totality principle did not require the judge to adopt either of the alternative structures proposed by the applicant. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive terms for distinct groups of offending while making other terms concurrent, provided that the resulting sentence properly reflected the overall gravity of the offending.
3. Alleged double counting and mitigation. The Court found no material double counting. The judge had considered that the first two counts arose from one incident, the relevance of breach of trust to the starting point and aggravating factors, the dates of the offending, the applicant’s voluntary cessation of offending, his remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and his constructive use of custody.
4. Aggravating features. The previous conviction for making indecent images of children and the significant breach of trust were properly treated as serious aggravating factors. The previous offending also demonstrated an escalating pattern of behaviour despite the recent community order.

The sentence was within the permissible range and was commensurate with the gravity of the offending. The renewed application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 9 October 2025, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1486.
2. Single judge — Refused leave to appeal, considering the five-year sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offending and not manifestly excessive.
3. Crown Court at Southampton — On 23 October 2024, the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, following an adjustment on 16 December 2024.