R v Richard Lawrie

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court of Appeal may increase a sentence only where it is unduly lenient. The statutory scheme is not generally intended to correct a sentence that is merely at the lower end of the proper range, or to add a few months where the sentencing judge's approach was within the available range. In assessing harm caused or risked by breach of notification requirements, all relevant factors must be weighed, including the original offending and the circumstances of the breach. Serious but indirect risk may justify a lower harm category than direct contact offending. The totality principle permits concurrent sentences where the aggregate sentence is proportionate to the overall offending.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed on R v Richard Lawrie by HHJ Fanning at Carlisle Crown Court on 10 September 2025. The offender had pleaded guilty to 22 offences involving indecent images of children, extreme pornography and breaches of notification requirements. The judge imposed two years' imprisonment after applying maximum credit for early guilty pleas to a three-year sentence.

The reference challenged the categorisation of the notification breaches as category 2 harm, the adequacy of the uplift for the duration and volume of offending, and the overall seriousness of the sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

The court granted leave for the reference but refused to increase the sentence.

1. Section 36 review. The court accepted that a longer sentence was open to the sentencing judge. A sentence of four years before credit for the guilty plea, and possibly more, could have been justified. That did not make the sentence imposed unduly lenient. The reference jurisdiction is not generally designed to address a difference of only a few months between the Court of Appeal's assessment and a sentence that was properly available to the sentencing judge.
2. Notification breaches. The applicable guideline required harm to be assessed by weighing all the circumstances, including the original offences and the circumstances of the breach. The breaches involved a long period of non-compliance and therefore culpability A. However, the harm arising from this offender's conduct was indirect. It was real, but less direct than harm arising from a breach intended to facilitate direct access to and sexual abuse of a child. The judge was entitled to select category 2 harm.
3. Totality and seriousness. The judge was entitled to impose concurrent terms and to identify a sentence proportionate to the whole offending. The court emphasised the exceptionally serious nature of the offending, the volume and nature of the images, the previous conviction, the continued offending after a caution, and the offender's evident risk to children. The absence of contact offending did not remove that risk, particularly in light of the offender's expressed fantasies and intentions.
4. Disposition. Three years before credit represented a substantial term, reduced to two years for the early guilty pleas. The sentence was at the lower end of the proper range but was not unduly lenient. It was therefore left unchanged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted but the sentence was not increased: [2025] EWCA Crim 1732.
2. Carlisle Crown Court: HHJ Fanning sentenced the offender on 10 September 2025 to two years' imprisonment after allowing maximum credit for early guilty pleas.