R v Ellis Dismore

In sentencing for exceptionally grave offending, the guideline range for the lead attempted-murder offence is not an absolute ceiling. The court must assess the totality of the offending and may go significantly above the category range where sustained sexual abuse and manipulation of children culminate in an attempted killing. Extended sentences exceeding about 30 years remain comparatively rare and are reserved for particularly serious cases. An offender’s lack of previous convictions may carry little weight where offending has continued for years and escalated with age and maturity.

The appellant was convicted of 26 offences committed between 2015 and 2023 against nine girls, including attempted murder, sexual offences, stalking and indecent-image offences. The offending involved false identities, coercion, threats, blackmail and the sharing of images, and culminated in a knife attack on a 15-year-old victim.

On 8 January 2025, Teesside Crown Court sentenced him under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to an extended sentence of 43 years, comprising 38 years’ custody and five years’ extended licence. He appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive, while accepting the dangerousness finding and extended licence. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled substantially to exceed the category range for attempted murder.

1. Disposition. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The 43-year extended sentence, comprising 38 years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, was within the range available to the sentencing judge.
2. Sentencing approach. The attempted murder was correctly treated as a category 2A offence under the Sentencing Guideline for Attempted Murder, with a 30-year starting point and a range of 25 to 35 years. Culpability was very high because the victim was a child and the offence was sexually motivated. Harm was category 2. The substantial aggravating effect of the other offending, assessed with the principle of totality, entitled the judge to go significantly beyond the guideline range.
3. In R v AYO [2022] EWCA 1271, the court had recognised that extended custodial terms above about 30 years for multiple sexual offences were comparatively rare and reserved for particularly serious offending. This was such a case, given the prolonged abuse and manipulation of nine children, stalking, threats, dissemination of indecent images and the attempted killing of one victim.
4. Mitigation. There was very little mitigation. The absence of previous convictions carried no weight because the offending had continued for a lengthy period and occupied a significant proportion of the offender’s life. The offending had become more entrenched and escalated as he grew older and more mature.
5. Life sentence and correction. The court observed that this was a clear case in which a life sentence could have been imposed. It also corrected the description of the maximum penalty for the two stalking offences, which had partly occurred before 3 April 2017; the correction did not affect the sentences imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was held to be within the available range.
• Teesside Crown Court — On 8 January 2025, the appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 43 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Leave to appeal was granted by a single judge.