R v Stephen Hopcroft

For an Attorney General’s Reference, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Leave is exceptional and is not granted for borderline cases. In sentencing historic sexual offences, the court must respect the regime and maximum applicable when the offences were committed, using any current guideline for an equivalent offence as measured reference. Seriousness and culpability remain primary. Where offences against different victims are sentenced concurrently, totality requires the separate harm to be reflected. Otherwise the sentence may be unduly lenient. Mitigation, including delay, good character and ill health, must be weighed but cannot erase distinct offending. The appropriate remedy may be to make a sentence for one offence consecutive to the lead term.

Following conviction at St Albans Crown Court in June 2025, Stephen Hopcroft was sentenced on 8 August 2025 to an overall term of 31 months’ imprisonment for three indecent assaults and one offence contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences involved two victims aged 13 or 14 and occurred between 2002 and 2004.

The Attorney General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that concurrent sentences failed to reflect the separate offending and harm caused to the second victim. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, how the principle of totality should be applied in light of delay, good character and serious ill health.

Reference allowed in part. The Court granted leave and increased the overall sentence from 31 months to 49 months.

1. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, an Attorney General’s Reference is concerned with sentences that fall outside the range which the first-instance judge might reasonably consider appropriate. Leave should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not in borderline cases. The jurisdiction addresses cases involving gross error.
2. For historical sexual offences, the sentence must be determined by reference to the sentencing regime applicable when the offences were committed, subject to the maximum sentence then available. Any reduced maximum applies, and current sentencing guidelines for equivalent offences may provide a measured reference. Seriousness and culpability are the principal considerations. Delay, good character and ill health may mitigate sentence, although the weight given to good character reduces as the seriousness of the offence increases.
3. The totality guideline indicates that consecutive sentences will normally be appropriate where concurrent sentences do not sufficiently reflect the overall criminality, including where offences are committed against different people.
4. The sentencing judge correctly identified the modern guideline categories and gave clear reasons for reducing the sentence to reflect delay, character and illness. However, the remarks did not explain how the initial 40-month figure had been reached or recognise the separate harm caused by the offending against victim A. That failure meant that the sentence was unduly lenient.
5. The appropriate correction was to make the 18-month sentence for count 5 consecutive to the 31-month sentence for count 2, while keeping the 10-month sentence for count 8 concurrent. The resulting overall sentence was 49 months’ imprisonment, which reflected totality and the difficulties arising from the offender’s health.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 18 November 2025, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the Reference was allowed in part. The sentence was varied to an overall term of 49 months: [2025] EWCA Crim 1598.
2. Crown Court at St Albans: Following conviction, the offender was sentenced on 8 August 2025 to an overall term of 31 months’ imprisonment.