R v Jonathan Cobley

Whether a defendant intended to carry out an arrangement for a child sexual offence is a matter for the jury. Realistic commercial negotiations, repeated contact and practical arrangements may provide sufficient evidence of intent. A claimed fantasy or wind-up need not be accepted where the circumstances make it implausible. Evidence of a separate conversation concerning sexual access to a young girl may be admitted where it is relevant to sexual interest and rebuts a false impression created in interview. For sentencing, the contemplated harm may be assessed by reference to the completed offence, with a substantial reduction for desistance and personal mitigation. An indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order may be upheld where the intended conduct warrants it.

Following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of arranging or facilitating the rape of a child under 13. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and made subject to an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge and appealed against sentence with permission. The conviction grounds concerned whether there was a case to answer and whether evidence of a separate conversation about a seven-year-old girl was admissible. The sentence grounds concerned the assessment of harm, the reduction for non-completion and personal mitigation, and the duration of the protective order.

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. Case to answer. The authorities concerning internet conversations about sexual offending had to be read in their factual context. In R v Hedgcock [2007] EWCA Crim 3486, the exchanges were highly unusual and were properly capable of being regarded as fantasy, so further evidence was required. R v G [2012] EWCA Crim 1756 was similarly fact-specific. The present conversations formed part of a realistic commercial negotiation following an advertisement for sexual services. The repeated calls, requested age and sexual acts, agreed price, location and proposed journey enabled a reasonable jury to reject the explanation that the appellant was merely winding someone up. The nature of the conversation itself was indicative of an intention to commit the offence.
2. Evidence of sexual interest. The separate conversation involving payment to see a seven-year-old girl naked was relevant to whether the appellant had a sexual interest in young girls. It was also admissible to rebut the false impression created by his interview statements that he had no such interest. The weight of the evidence was for the jury.
3. Sentence. The judge was entitled to assess the harm by reference to the completed offence which the appellant believed he was arranging. The contemplated victim was a particularly vulnerable 12-year-old who, on the appellant's understanding, had been prostituted or exploited for adult sexual gratification. The relevant completed offence had a category 2B starting point of ten years' custody. The failure to attend and the personal mitigation justified a substantial reduction. Six years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
4. Protective order. In the circumstances, the judge did not err by making the Sexual Harm Prevention Order remain in force until further order, despite the appellant's good character and lack of previous convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Under [2025] EWCA Crim 1592, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: Following conviction on 22 April 2024, His Honour Judge Cooke sentenced the appellant on 15 November 2024 to six years' imprisonment and imposed an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order.