R v Robert Aiden Castle

Blackmail is intrinsically serious and ordinarily calls for immediate custody with a deterrent element. Its gravity depends on the circumstances, but the absence of any genuine compromising material does not substantially reduce the seriousness of an unwarranted demand accompanied by a threat of reputational harm.

Deliberately targeting a person because they perform public service is materially aggravating. Sentencing may reflect both the direct harm and the corrosive effect such conduct may have on public service. Deterrence may properly respond to the prevailing context of threats and abuse directed at public servants.

Whether a sentence for blackmail may be suspended remains fact-sensitive. Immediate custody may nevertheless be necessary to achieve appropriate punishment.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Winchester Crown Court to one count of blackmail. He had sent a serving Member of Parliament an anonymous email which proposed a meeting, referred to a purported video recording, and said that a cash offer would be sought.

On 24 January 2025, His Honour Judge Dugdale imposed 26 months’ imprisonment after allowing credit for the guilty plea. The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the starting point, the allowance for mitigation, and the decision to impose immediate custody were excessive.

The Crown accepted that the complainant’s status as a serving MP significantly increased harm and culpability. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. There was no error of principle and the 26-month custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. Blackmail is a very serious and deterrent offence. The court endorsed the general sentencing propositions in Attorney General’s Reference Nos 11 and 12 of 2016 [2016] EWCA Crim 2312. Immediate custody will ordinarily be anticipated. The making of unwarranted demands with threats is the gravamen of the offence. A threat to reveal reputation-destroying allegations may engender fear even where the allegations are false and no genuine compromising video exists.

3. The non-existence of the purported video was a proper circumstance in mitigation of the provisional sentence. It did not render the threat childlike or substantially diminish its seriousness. The complainant reasonably perceived a real threat of serious reputational harm.

4. The sentencing judge erred in describing the complainant as vulnerable. He was, however, exposed through his role as an MP. The deliberate targeting of a public servant in that capacity was the central aggravating feature. Its harm extended beyond the individual complainant to the possible effect on willingness to undertake public service. Political motivation was irrelevant.

5. A strong deterrent element was legitimate under Sentencing Act 2020, section 57. The contemporary environment of threats, violence and online abuse directed at MPs justified a severe custodial sentence. A provisional term of three years and four months, before mitigation and plea credit, was not manifestly excessive. The judge had properly considered the applicant’s mental health, effective good character and other mitigation.

6. The suspension question did not arise. The court nevertheless confirmed that a sentence of under 24 months for blackmail can in suitable circumstances be suspended, as R v Sullivan [2021] EWCA Crim 248 illustrates. In an appropriate case, however, immediate custody may be required to achieve proper punishment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal and dismissed the sentence appeal: [2025] EWCA Crim 535.
• Winchester Crown Court: On 24 January 2025, His Honour Judge Dugdale sentenced the applicant to 26 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to blackmail.