R v Stuart Martin Shaw

For an attempted offence under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, harm is assessed by reference to the sexual activity intended. A downward adjustment may then reflect the absence or reduction of actual harm. Where the offender was prevented only at a late stage, or the apparent child was a decoy and the offender would otherwise have acted, only a very small reduction will usually be appropriate. The fact that the offence was an attempt does not justify a further reduction. An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless it is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed at Bournemouth Crown Court on 14 March 2025. He received four years and four months’ imprisonment, after guilty plea credit, for attempted sexual offences arising from communications with a decoy social media profile purporting to be a 12-year-old girl. The principal challenge concerned the eight-year guideline starting point for attempted incitement under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The applicant argued that the offence was an attempt, involved no actual child, was short-lived and should have attracted a lower starting point. The central issue was whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. The principal offence was properly placed in category 2A under the applicable Sentencing Council guideline. Harm was assessed at level 2 because the applicant incited what he believed to be a 12-year-old girl to penetrate her vagina. Culpability was at level A, particularly because he incited the recording of a sexual image and there was an element of grooming.
2. For the underlying section 8 offence, the guideline required the court first to identify the harm category by reference to the sexual activity intended. At the second step, the court could reduce the sentence to reflect the fact that no or lesser harm actually resulted. Where the offender was prevented only at a late stage, or the apparent child did not exist and the offender would otherwise have carried out the offence, only a very small reduction was generally appropriate. No additional reduction was justified merely because the offence was an attempt. The judge’s six-month reduction was therefore appropriate.
3. The applicant had not desisted voluntarily at an early stage. The sentence also had to reflect all three offences, including the steps taken to conceal the offending. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant’s intoxication, short period of offending, guilty pleas, remorse, mental health, lack of relevant convictions, delay and other mitigation.
4. The proposed lower starting point and further reduction were not arguable. Leave to appeal was refused.

1. Crown Court at Bournemouth: On 14 March 2025, HHJ Pawson KC sentenced the applicant to four years and four months’ imprisonment for attempted sexual offences. Full credit was given for guilty pleas.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A Single Judge refused leave to appeal. On renewal, the Court agreed that there was no arguable basis for contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and refused leave.