R v Jamie Barnes

For an offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, sentencing is based on the sexual activity and harm intended, not merely on whether the underlying abuse occurred or a real child was involved. Where the court finds an intention that a real child would suffer the specified abuse, it should use the corresponding guideline category. The absence of actual harm requires a reduction within the applicable range so that the sentence is commensurate with the starting point and range. Failure to make that adjustment may render the sentence manifestly excessive. The statutory maximum remains applicable.

This was an appeal against sentence with leave. The appellant had been convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence and of making indecent photographs of a child, having also pleaded guilty to drug possession offences. He received a total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

The appeal challenged the assessment of harm, the effect of the absence of actual abuse, and the weight given to mitigation, including the appellant's lack of previous sexual convictions, neurodevelopmental conditions and drug misuse. The central issue was whether the sentence for the preparatory offence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence for arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence was manifestly excessive and was reduced.
2. The court applied the approach in R v Privett [2020] EWCA Crim 557. An offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is complete when the arrangements are made or the intended offence is facilitated. It does not depend on the underlying offence occurring or being possible. The absence of a real victim does not remove the need to assess the harm intended. Section 143(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires intended harm to be considered.
3. The harm category must be identified by reference to the sexual activity intended. The sentence must then be adjusted so that it is commensurate with the applicable starting point and range. Where the arranged offence did not occur, a reduction within the category range is required to reflect the absence of actual harm.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant believed he would see a real child being raped. It was therefore correct to assess the case by reference to the guideline for rape of a child under 13, rather than category 3 harm. The statutory maximum of 14 years also applied. The mitigation, including the absence of previous sexual offending, ADHD and ASD, and cessation of Class A drug use, had been considered.
5. The judge did not refer to the required adjustment for the absence of actual harm or indicate that it had been made. A sentence of 9 years 6 months properly reflected the seriousness of the offence. The sentence on count 1 was quashed and substituted with that term. The remaining sentences and orders were unaffected, producing a total custodial sentence of 10 years.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeal against sentence allowed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1686. The sentence on count 1 was quashed and substituted with 9 years 6 months' imprisonment.
2. Cambridge Crown Court — On 28 February 2025, imposed 11 years 6 months' imprisonment on count 1 and a total custodial sentence of 12 years, together with ancillary orders.