R v Jack Watkin

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court held that a sentence for several frauds may reflect all the offending, including multiple victims and sustained conduct. A total value below the financial figure underlying a guideline starting point does not require a proportionate reduction where the additional offences justify the sentence imposed. Relevant autism, age, good character and other mitigation must be considered, and express reference to the medical evidence and mitigation may demonstrate that they were taken into account. Offending committed while on bail is an aggravating factor, even if it predates an interview about related offences. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate for materially different offending, subject to totality. Leave should be refused where the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Chester, the applicant was convicted of offences involving indecent images of children. During the second day of the trial he pleaded guilty to six fraud offences. The judge imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment for the frauds and a consecutive term of 18 months for the image offences.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant renewed his application. He challenged the assessment of culpability, the treatment of his autism, age and previous good character, the financial value of the frauds, the timing and aggravating effect of some image offences, and the application of totality. The central issue was whether any proposed ground was arguable and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. None of the proposed grounds was arguable.

1. Fraud offences. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the fraud offending as high culpability, having regard to the number of victims and the abuse of trust. Although the total value obtained was below the financial figure underlying the relevant guideline starting point, the judge had to sentence six offences involving multiple victims over a sustained period. He was entitled to conclude that any reduction appropriate for a single offence was offset by the additional offending which the sentence had to reflect.
2. Mitigation. The judge expressly referred to the medical report and considered the applicant’s autism, previous good character, age and other mitigating matters. Autism might affect the applicant’s understanding of the effect of his conduct, but it did not excuse the offending. The judge also addressed the fact that the business was not fraudulent from the outset, the lower total value and partial reimbursement. The challenge that these matters had not been taken into account was therefore unarguable.
3. Indecent-image offences. Counts 7, 8 and 9 were committed before the applicant had been interviewed about the offences in counts 1 to 6. They were nevertheless committed after his phone had been seized in connection with the fraud investigation and while he was on bail. Offending while on bail was itself an aggravating factor. The judge had also considered the applicant’s diagnosis, age and good character.
4. Consecutive sentences and totality. The two sets of offending were very different, so consecutive sentences were clearly required. The judge expressly addressed totality. Taking all matters advanced on the applicant’s behalf into account, the resulting sentence could not be regarded as manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Single judge: refused the applicant’s initial application for leave.
• Crown Court at Chester: following conviction for indecent-image offences and guilty pleas to six fraud offences, imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment for the frauds and a consecutive term of 18 months for the image offences.