R v Terry James

In an exceptionally serious course of sexual offending involving multiple victims, substantial planning, abuse of trust, severe harm and significant aggravation, a sentencing court may move above the guideline range for an individual offence after applying totality. An appellate court will not interfere merely because the resulting custodial term is severe; the question is whether it is excessive in all the circumstances.

A forfeiture and destruction order that was not made publicly must be revoked.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bradford to numerous sexual offences against customers of his laser hair-removal business, together with offences concerning indecent and prohibited images. He covertly filmed complainants and committed assaults by penetration while purporting to provide legitimate treatments.

The sentencing judge imposed extended determinate sentences for the assaults by penetration, with a 17-year custodial term and a three-year extended licence for the principal counts. The appellant appealed on the ground that the custodial term was excessive. The Registrar also raised issues concerning the recording and validity of ancillary orders.

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The judge was entitled to select the assaults by penetration as lead offences. Having placed each individual offence in Category 2A, she was entitled to increase the sentence substantially from the starting point and to the top of the range before considering the totality of the offending.
2. The 17-year custodial term was severe but not excessive. The court took account of the multiple victims and offences, the appellant’s planning and abuse of trust, the profound psychological effects on the complainants, his relevant previous conviction, and the fact that he offended while subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and under investigation for further offending. Those matters justified a sentence outside the Category 2A range.
3. The court directed corrections to the record. The extended sentences were imposed on the specified counts of assault by penetration; the other concurrent sentences remained undisturbed. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order was a new indefinite order, rather than a variation of the 2017 order. The surcharge was reduced from £228 to the correct sum of £190.
4. The forfeiture and destruction order was revoked. Applying R v Leitch [2024] EWCA Crim 563, the court held that it had to be revoked because it had been recorded administratively but was not made publicly in open court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence and corrected or revoked ancillary orders: [2025] EWCA Crim 808.
• Crown Court at Bradford: On 1 December 2023, imposed extended determinate sentences for assault by penetration and concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.