R v Kristian Parry

Where no offence category sufficiently resembles the offender’s case, a sentencing court may select a sentence without adopting a category starting point. The relevant guideline remains useful as a point of reference. Fraud committed to obtain nursery employment for sexual gratification through access to young children involves culpability and risk of harm beyond the financial considerations captured by the Fraud Guideline. Its seriousness depends on the nature of the employment and the offender’s purpose, rather than merely the falsification of references. Wages paid for work actually performed may remain relevant as financial gain even if excluded as loss. A justified departure from guideline categorisation does not prevent the resulting sentence from being unduly lenient.

Kristian Parry obtained employment as a nursery care assistant by submitting fabricated references. His duties gave him access to very young children, including through changing their nappies. A police investigation uncovered indecent and prohibited images of children on his devices and evidence of a sexual interest in young children wearing nappies. No sexual harm to the nursery children was proved.

Parry pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to fraud by false representation, three offences of making indecent images of children and possession of a prohibited image of a child. Following committal for sentence, the Crown Court at Leeds imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for fraud and concurrent image-offence sentences carrying a further consecutive 12 months. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the total sentence as unduly lenient. The principal issues were how the Fraud Guideline should accommodate the offender’s sexual purpose and whether the sentences adequately reflected the seriousness and totality of the offending.

1. The reference was allowed. The fraud sentence was unduly lenient, although the judge had been entitled to conclude that the Fraud Guideline categories did not sufficiently resemble the offence. The sentence for the image offences, considered separately, was not unduly lenient (paras 32, 34–37).

2. Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 required relevant guidelines to be followed unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. The duties included imposing a sentence within the offence range and identifying the category most resembling the case. Under section 60(5), however, category selection was unnecessary where none sufficiently resembled the offender’s case. Those included duties did not exhaust the principal guidelines duty. The judge had substantively applied section 60(5), but the Fraud Guideline remained useful as a point of reference (para 32).

3. The seriousness of the fraud lay principally in obtaining access to defenceless children for sexual gratification. The children and their parents were victims despite suffering no financial loss. The offender acquired a position of trust through the fraud rather than abusing an existing position to commit it. Enjoying the proceeds of the fraud for several months did not mean that the fraud itself had been committed over a sustained period. The guideline factors therefore failed to capture the full culpability and risk of serious non-financial harm. This reasoning did not extend to every dishonest job application (paras 29–32).

4. Wages paid for work actually performed could be excluded from financial loss but counted as actual financial gain. The claimed sum of £26,605 remained relevant, together with the risk to the nursery’s viability and the intended continuation of the offender’s earnings. Those financial considerations still failed to measure the principal harm: exposing young children to the offender’s sexual interest. A sentence at the bottom of the category A3 range could not reflect that seriousness (paras 33–34).

5. The prosecution’s sentencing submissions below did not bar the Law Officers from advancing a different approach on the reference: R v Stewart [2016] EWCA Crim 2238; [2017] 1 Cr App R(S) 48, applied. For fraud, at least four years’ imprisonment before plea discount was required, giving full weight to remorse, previous good character and immaturity (paras 26, 35).

6. Consecutive sentences were appropriate for the two different kinds of offending. Four years for fraud and 18 months for the image offences produced a proportionate total of five and a half years before discount. Full one-third credit for the earliest guilty pleas reduced that total to 44 months. The 12-month fraud sentence was quashed and replaced by 32 months. The other sentences and orders remained unchanged (paras 36–37).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, increased the fraud sentence from 12 to 32 months. The total sentence became 44 months’ imprisonment. The other sentences and orders remained unchanged: [2026] EWCA Crim 1252 .
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 17 March 2026, HH Geoffrey Marson KC imposed a total sentence of two years’ imprisonment following committal for sentence. The fraud sentence and the concurrent image-offence sentences were consecutive.
• Magistrates’ Court: The offender pleaded guilty to all five charges and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.