R v Jeffrey Legg

In an Attorney General reference, an appellate court will not disturb a trial judge’s assessment of psychological harm, where the judge has seen the relevant evidence, unless the finding lacks evidential support, conflicts with an uncontroverted fact, or is irrational.

A sentencing judge may make a permissible upward adjustment within the applicable guideline range for enhanced harm that falls short of severe psychological harm. Previous good character normally carries little weight for a serious sexual offence against a child, but other mitigation may still be relevant. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient.

The respondent was convicted in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of assault of a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offending occurred when the complainant was aged between eight and 10.

The sentencing judge categorised the offence as category 3A under the applicable guideline. He imposed six years’ imprisonment, comprising a starting point of six years, an increase for enhanced harm, and a reduction for mitigation. He also imposed a one-year extended licence period.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the harm should have been categorised as severe, that the upward adjustment was insufficient, and that excessive weight had been given to good character and other mitigation.

Disposition

1. The court granted leave for the reference but dismissed it. The sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period was not unduly lenient.
2. The trial judge was best placed to assess whether the complainant had suffered severe psychological harm because he had seen her evidence. An appellate court should not interfere with that factual assessment unless it is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with an uncontroverted fact, or irrational. The judge had considered the contemporaneous material and the evidence of prolonged antidepressant use. His finding of significant, enhanced, but not severe psychological harm was open to him.
3. The category 3A sentence reflected grooming and abuse of trust, with an upward adjustment for the enhanced harm. The one-year increase from the starting point was permissible, although other judges might have increased the sentence further.
4. Previous good character normally does not justify a substantial reduction for a serious sexual offence against a child. However, the judge was also entitled to consider the delay in proceedings, the consequences of imprisonment for the respondent and his family, and other personal mitigation. The Court of Appeal considered that other judges might have given that mitigation less weight, but it could not conclude that the resulting sentence crossed the threshold of undue leniency.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 820.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The respondent was convicted on 24 January 2025 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period.