R v Jack Williams

The totality principle requires a sentence for multiple offences to reflect the offender’s overall criminality and remain proportionate. Where breach of a protective court order and communication offences arise from the same conduct, they may represent different aspects of one criminality but should ordinarily attract concurrent terms. Consecutive terms must not be added mechanically; a further reduction may be required. An individual sentence may exceed the guideline range where necessary to reflect the totality of the criminal conduct, provided that the overall sentence remains proportionate. The nature and extent of online contact, including whether there was a meeting or attempted meeting, may be relevant to that assessment.

The appellant appealed against a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Chester on 19 November 2024. He had pleaded guilty to offences involving indecent images of children, attempted sexual communication with children, and breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms for the image and communication offences, consecutive terms for two breaches of the order, and a concurrent term for a further breach.

The appeal concerned whether the sentence properly reflected totality and whether the communication offences and corresponding breaches should have been sentenced concurrently. The individual guideline categorisations were not challenged.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the overall sentence was reduced from five years to three years and six months. The increase in the sentences for two counts did not prevent that result because the sentence structure was altered and all terms were made concurrent.
2. The offending was repeated, and the appellant had not been deterred by previous custodial sentences for similar conduct. An immediate custodial sentence exceeding the previous 12-month terms was justified. The judge’s individual categorisation of the offences under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline was not challenged.
3. The breach offences and the attempted communication offences reflected different aspects of the same criminal offending. The communication offences reflected potential harm to children, while the breaches reflected flagrant disobedience of a court order. They should therefore have attracted concurrent terms which, taken together, reflected the seriousness of the conduct. Because the maximum sentence for the communication offences was two years and that for the breach offences was five years, the breach sentences could properly be longer while the communication sentences remained concurrent.
4. Although each of the two principal breaches could individually have attracted 27 months after credit for the guilty plea, simply adding those terms together failed to give proper effect to totality. The concurrent sentence for the less serious communication offence did not cure that error. The absence of any meeting or attempted meeting with the children, and the limited extent of the online communication, were relevant to proportionality.
5. The sentences on counts 5 and 6 were replaced with concurrent sentences of three years and six months each. The notional sentence after trial of four years and eight months for each offence was outside the guideline range, but was justified by the need to reflect the entirety of the appellant’s criminal conduct. The sentences on all other counts remained unchanged and concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 3 July 2025, allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of reducing the total term to three years and six months: [2025] EWCA Crim 955.
• Crown Court at Chester: On 19 November 2024, imposed a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment for offences involving indecent images, attempted sexual communication with children, and breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.