R v John Herring

In sentencing for sexual offending directed at persons believed to be children, communications with adult decoys may properly aggravate the seriousness of the offending. The sentencing court must nevertheless give due weight to the absence of actual harm in those cases. That consideration does not make the offending non-serious or preclude a custodial sentence, but it may justify a reduction on appeal.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stafford to 27 offences involving sexual communications with persons he believed to be children. The offences concerned 18 individuals, of whom 17 were adult decoys and one was a real child. He received a sentence of 6 years and 9 months' imprisonment.

Following refusal of permission by a single judge, the applicant renewed his application. The central issue was whether sufficient account had been taken of the absence of actual harm in the 26 decoy cases, while those cases were treated as aggravating features.

1. Permission and outcome. The court granted permission to appeal and allowed the appeal. It substituted a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for the sentence of 6 years and 9 months.
2. Aggravating significance of decoy cases. The sentencing judge was right to treat the 26 decoy cases as aggravating facts. The applicant had deliberately contacted multiple persons whom he believed to be children and had sought to sexualise them for his own gratification.
3. Absence of actual harm. It was nevertheless important to take proper account of the fact that the 26 decoy cases involved no actual child and could not result in actual harm. The limited harm arising from the communication with the real child was also relevant.
4. Overall assessment. The absence of actual harm did not mean that the offending was not serious or that a custodial sentence was inappropriate. However, standing back from the sentencing exercise, and without undertaking a technical recalculation, the court concluded that an additional reduction was justified.

1. Crown Court at Stafford: the applicant pleaded guilty to 27 offences and was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): following refusal of permission by a single judge, the renewed application was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted with one of 5 years' imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1864.