R v Guiseppe Fiorellini-Bernardis

Attempted sexual offending against an adult decoy is assessed by reference to the intended conduct. Remote offending attracts the same approach to seriousness as offending in person. Where the offender would have completed the offence but for the absence of a real child, only a very small reduction within the applicable guideline category range will usually be appropriate.

Mitigation may justify a sentence at the bottom of the correct category range. A sufficient prospect of rehabilitation may nevertheless justify suspending a custodial sentence. Three years’ imprisonment is a sentence of moderate length for the relevant guideline, and immediate custody is not invariably required for offending of this seriousness.

The offender, aged 43, communicated online with an account presenting its user as a 14-year-old girl. The account was operated by an adult volunteer acting as a decoy. The offender sent sexual images and instructed the supposed child to engage in sexual activity, including vaginal self-penetration.

He pleaded guilty to four attempted sexual offences. On 15 June 2026, the Crown Court at Lincoln imposed concurrent sentences, the longest being 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years with additional requirements. Attempting to cause or incite penetrative sexual activity was treated as the lead offence.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference challenged the reduction made because the supposed child was a decoy, the length of the sentences and their suspension. The central questions were the proper guideline category and whether sufficient prospects of rehabilitation justified a suspended sentence.

1. Leave to refer was granted. The sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3 were unduly lenient in length, but a suspended sentence order was justified. The contention that only immediate imprisonment could suffice was rejected (paras [30]–[42]).

2. The guideline required the same approach to seriousness whether sexual activity was caused or incited remotely or in person. Where an attempted offence would have been completed but for the absence of a real child, only a very small reduction within the category range would usually be appropriate. The sentencing judge had made a substantially greater reduction for the decoy and had wrongly treated the absence of face-to-face contact as warranting a lower sentencing assessment (paras [22], [27], [30]–[32]).

3. The lead offence could only properly be categorised as 1A. The intended vaginal penetration placed the attempted harm in category 1. The significant age disparity and solicitation of sexual images engaged culpability A. However, the course of conduct lasted less than 24 hours and lacked other, graver culpability A features. Positive good character and the absence of convictions afforded limited mitigation. Delay in bringing the matter before the court also counted in the offender’s favour. Those considerations justified a four-year notional sentence after trial, at the bottom of the category 1A range, reduced to three years for the accepted 25 per cent guilty plea credit (paras [23]–[26], [32]–[36]).

4. Section 2 of the Sentencing Act 2026 had commenced before the first guilty plea and enabled the judge to suspend a three-year term. The guideline recognised rehabilitation as a proper basis for alternatives to short or moderate custodial sentences. In R v White, three years had been treated as moderate. The pre-sentence report supported rehabilitation, there was no suggestion of further offending, and the Probation Service considered the risk manageable in the community. The offender had also completed the unpaid work requirement. Suspension therefore lay within the judge’s discretion (paras [37]–[41]).

5. The sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3 were quashed. Concurrent terms of three years on count 3 and 18 months on each of counts 1 and 2 were substituted, all suspended for two years. The eight-month suspended sentence on count 4 and the existing requirements remained unaltered (para [42]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2026] EWCA Crim 1290 : granted leave on the Attorney General’s reference and substituted concurrent sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3, maintaining suspension for two years. The sentence on count 4 and the existing requirements remained unaltered.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: following guilty pleas to all four charges by 27 April 2026, imposed concurrent sentences on 15 June 2026, the longest being 18 months’ imprisonment, all suspended for two years.
• Magistrates’ court: on 30 March 2026, the offender pleaded guilty to attempting to cause a child to look at an image of sexual activity and indicated not guilty pleas to the other three charges. The proceedings subsequently reached the Crown Court.