R v Michael Green

Sentencing: In deciding whether to suspend a custodial sentence, a court must address how rehabilitation, risk management and public protection can best be achieved in the offender’s particular circumstances. A serious offence and a high risk of future harm do not automatically require immediate custody. Where short-term imprisonment is unlikely to provide the necessary interventions, but a structured suspended sentence can require sexual-offending work, rehabilitation, alcohol abstinence and a curfew, suspension may better reduce reoffending and protect those at risk. A sentence at the top of the applicable guideline range may nevertheless be justified where sustained offending and other aggravating features substantially outweigh mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to sexual assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after repeatedly sexually touching a 15-year-old girl on a bus. On 6 January 2025, the Crown Court imposed 16 months’ immediate imprisonment.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive. He accepted the applicable guideline category and the victim’s vulnerability, but contended that his mental disorders, remorse and rehabilitative prospects required a suspended sentence. The central issues were whether the term was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred in refusing suspension.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the length of the custodial term but held that it should have been suspended. The 16-month immediate sentence was quashed and replaced by a 16-month sentence suspended for 24 months.
2. The offending was properly classified as Category B2 under the Sexual Offence Guideline. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant’s learning disabilities and mental disorders did not significantly reduce culpability. His intoxication and disinhibition, the sustained and persistent sexual conduct, the child victim’s vulnerability, and the public setting with another child present substantially outweighed the available mitigation. A two-year sentence after trial, reduced to 16 months for the guilty plea, was severe but not manifestly excessive.
3. The sentencing judge nevertheless erred in refusing suspension. He had not fully grappled with the appellant’s background or with how future risk could best be managed to maximise rehabilitation and protect teenage girls. The prison report showed that immediate custody had not enabled sexual-offending or alcohol work. A suspended sentence could instead impose an accredited sexual-offending programme, rehabilitation activity, alcohol abstinence monitoring and a curfew, while retaining punitive force.
4. On the very particular facts, the substituted order included residence, an accredited sexual-offending programme of up to 43 days, 55 rehabilitation-activity days, a four-month electronically monitored curfew, and 90 days’ alcohol abstinence monitoring. Breach could activate all or part of the suspended term or result in more demanding requirements.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By judgment dated 28 March 2025, [2025] EWCA Crim 462, the court allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of substituting a suspended sentence of the same length.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Following the appellant’s guilty plea to sexual assault, His Honour Judge Bayliss KC imposed 16 months’ immediate imprisonment on 6 January 2025.