R v Adrian John Jellicoe

In applying a sentencing guideline, the only true starting point is the sentence identified for the relevant offence category. An upward adjustment before considering aggravating and mitigating factors may be appropriate only in a case of particular gravity reflected by multiple features of culpability or harm. The court must assess all aggravating and mitigating factors overall, allowing for overlap and avoiding double-counting. A sentence at the top of the guideline range requires sufficient justification. Immediate custody may be required without imposing the maximum sentence.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of two offences contrary to s.9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, involving sexual activity with a 12-year-old girl towards whom he was in a position of trust. The lead offence was placed in category 3A of the applicable sentencing guideline, with a six-month starting point and a range extending to three years’ imprisonment. The judge imposed three years for the lead offence and a concurrent term of 18 months for the second offence.

With leave, the appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentencing exercise involved confusion about the starting point, double-counting and insufficient mitigation. The central issue was whether a sentence at the top of the category range was justified.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentence for the lead offence was reduced from three years’ imprisonment to two years. The concurrent 18-month sentence for the second offence remained undisturbed.
2. The only true starting point was the six-month sentence specified by the relevant guideline for category 3A. In a case of particular gravity, an upward adjustment may be made from that starting point before considering aggravating and mitigating factors, where multiple features of culpability or harm justify it.
3. The sentencing judge correctly placed the lead offence in category 3A and made no upward adjustment before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. His later reference to reducing the “starting point” meant the figure reached after aggravation and before mitigation, rather than the guideline starting point.
4. The court accepted significant aggravating factors, including breach of trust, grooming behaviour, serious psychological harm, the location and timing of the offending, and the fact that there were two offences. It also recognised overlap between some culpability factors and limited mitigation, including effective good character.
5. There was insufficient reason to impose a sentence at the top of the category range. Immediate imprisonment was required, but the term should not have exceeded two years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 5 November 2025, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the lead sentence to two years’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1535. The concurrent 18-month sentence for the second offence remained in place.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 11 March 2025, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the lead offence and a concurrent term of 18 months on the second offence.