R v Robert Emmerson

When sentencing multiple sexual offences, the court must reflect the totality of the offending, including persistence, planning, violence, aggravating features and relevant previous convictions. It is inappropriate to impose for a course of serious offending a sentence no greater than would have been justified for one offence alone. Repeated exposure offending may indicate an escalating risk of sexual offending, particularly where it has progressed to contact offences. An extended determinate sentence is required where the offender is dangerous and poses a significant risk of serious harm to the public. On a reference for undue leniency, the Court of Appeal may quash the sentences and substitute sentences that properly reflect the offending and statutory maxima.

Following convictions at the Crown Court at Manchester on 23 October 2024 for five sexual assaults and seven offences of exposure, the offender was sentenced by Mr Recorder Lowe on 30 January 2025 to four and a half years’ imprisonment. The Solicitor General referred the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, submitting that the sexual assaults were Category A1 offences, that the multiplicity of offending required a substantial totality uplift, and that an extended determinate sentence was necessary.

The offender contended that the sentencing judge had been best placed to assess the criminality and had exercised his discretion appropriately. The central issues were whether the sentences were unduly lenient and whether the offender was dangerous so that an extended determinate sentence was required.

1. Reference allowed. The sentences imposed below were unduly lenient and were quashed.
2. The sexual assaults properly fell within Category A1. They involved significant violence, persistent offending at a deliberately selected location, and a significant degree of planning. The starting point for a single Category A1 sexual assault was four years’ custody, with a category range of three to seven years. It was plainly inappropriate to sentence all five sexual assaults at a level justified for only one of them. The conclusion was reinforced by the offender’s relevant previous convictions.
3. The exposure offences also required a more severe sentence. The previous convictions showed persistent exposure and stalking offending. That conduct was obsessive and could mark an escalating risk of sexual offending. In this case the offender had progressed from exposure and stalking to serious contact offending.
4. Although the offender could not be punished for having a trial, his continued denial and lack of insight were highly significant when assessing whether he was dangerous and whether an extended determinate sentence was necessary. He posed a very significant risk of serious harm to young women and girls.
5. An extended determinate sentence was plainly required for public protection. The Court imposed concurrent custodial terms of seven years for each sexual assault and concurrent terms of two years for each exposure offence, producing a total custodial term of seven years. In respect of each sexual assault, it imposed an extended determinate sentence of 10 years with a seven-year custodial term. The sentence was limited by the 10-year statutory maximum for sexual assault. The remaining orders were unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted, the sentences imposed by the Crown Court were quashed, and substitute extended determinate sentences were imposed.
• Crown Court at Manchester: Following convictions on 23 October 2024, Mr Recorder Lowe sentenced the offender on 30 January 2025 to four and a half years’ imprisonment.