R v SIQ

On an Attorney-General’s Reference, a sentence is unduly lenient where it falls outside the range reasonably available to the sentencing judge, even though mercy and leniency may properly be commended. In serious indecent-image cases, the court should assess separately the production, distribution and possession offending, apply the guideline starting points and aggravating factors, and give effect to totality. A young adult’s age, maturity, remorse, character and rehabilitative work may provide substantial mitigation. They do not make custody inappropriate where culpability remains high, the risk of further offending is real, and rehabilitation prospects are fragile. In those circumstances, immediate custody may be required and suspension may remain unjustified even for a term of two years or less.

The Solicitor General made an Attorney-General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Portsmouth on 10 April 2026. The offender, aged 20 at sentence, had pleaded guilty to offences involving possession, distribution and production of indecent or prohibited images of children. The production offence involved covertly recording his 10-year-old sister and sharing the recording online; the distribution and possession counts involved very large numbers of images, including Category A material. The Crown Court imposed two-year community orders with treatment, programme and rehabilitation activity requirements, together with a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, what sentence was required, including whether custody could be suspended.

1. Leave was granted and the reference was allowed. The sentence was outside the range reasonably available to the sentencing judge. Mercy and leniency may properly be commended, but they did not justify the disposal chosen.
2. The production offence, involving covert filming of a young child known to the offender and subsequent online distribution, had a guideline starting point of 18 months and a range of one to three years. Breach of trust, the victim’s age, the setting, continuing online humiliation and further degrading conduct placed it at the top of that range. The voyeurism was subsumed in the production offence. For the possession and distribution offences, the Category A distribution starting point was three years. Volume, duration, moving images, very young children and discernible pain or distress required a sentence well above that starting point for those offences alone.
3. The two largely distinct, although not wholly separate, aspects had to be assessed together under totality. For a mature adult after trial, more than six years’ imprisonment would have been required before personal mitigation. The offender’s good character, remorse, young age and therapeutic work were real mitigation. Age and maturity remained relevant for a young adult, consistent with R v Clarke [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 52, but he had not been assessed as immature and his circumstances did not reduce culpability or make custody unusually onerous.
4. The prospects of rehabilitation were real but fragile. The risk assessment did not support full management in the community, and the continuing risk of reoffending was significant. The appropriate sentence after trial was therefore at least four years’ detention. Full credit for guilty pleas produced two years eight months, making immediate custody inevitable. Even if a term of two years or less had been available, suspension would not have been appropriate when seriousness and risk were weighed against rehabilitation prospects and mitigation.
5. The court quashed the community-order sentences. It imposed two years eight months’ detention in a young offender institution for the distribution and production offences, and six months for the remaining offences, all concurrent. The total sentence ran from surrender to custody. Notification requirements became indefinite, and the Sexual Harm Prevention Order was increased from five to ten years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2026] EWCA Crim 1096 ): On an Attorney-General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, granted leave, quashed the community-order sentences and substituted concurrent custodial sentences totalling two years eight months.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: On 10 April 2026 imposed two-year community orders with treatment, programme and rehabilitation activity requirements, together with a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.