R v Lloyd Anthony Collins

[2025] EWCA Crim 519

Case details

Case citations
[2025] EWCA Crim 519
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
11 April 2025
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing Extended sentences
Keywords
extended determinate sentence statutory maximum sentence dangerous offender sexual activity with a child section 280(5) sentence appeal unlawful sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed (sentence on count 5 quashed and substituted)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An extended determinate sentence must not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the particular offence. Its custodial term and extension period must be aggregated for that purpose under Sentencing Act 2020, section 280(5). Where their aggregate exceeds the statutory maximum, the sentence is unlawful and should be quashed and replaced with a lawful extended sentence.

Factual background

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to several offences, including five counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child. The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 15 years on one count under the Sentencing Act 2020.

After a 228-day delay, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The issue was whether the extended sentence exceeded the 14-year maximum for engaging in sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act.

Held

  1. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence. It allowed the appeal to the extent necessary to correct the unlawful extended sentence.
  2. The maximum sentence for engaging in sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act was 14 years’ imprisonment. By section 280(5) of the Sentencing Act 2020, an extended sentence’s custodial term and extension period form an aggregate which cannot exceed that maximum. The sentence of nine years’ custody plus six years’ extension, totalling 15 years, was therefore unlawful.
  3. The court quashed the sentence on count 5 and substituted an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The remaining sentences were unaltered. Although the restraining order and sexual harm prevention order had been expressed under superseded legislation, the court directed that the record be corrected to refer respectively to sections 360 and 343 of the Sentencing Act 2020. That correction did not affect the result.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence; quashed the unlawful extended sentence on count 5 and substituted a lawful 14-year sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 519.
  • Crown Court at Lewes — on 18 July 2022 imposed concurrent sentences, including a 15-year extended determinate sentence for engaging in sexual activity with a child.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal allowed (sentence on count 5 quashed and substituted)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.