R v Gary Peter Campbell

In an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence, the merits of the proposed appeal may determine whether time should be extended. Personal mitigation, including caring responsibilities and deteriorating health, does not make a sentence excessive where the sentencing judge has properly assessed harm and culpability, applied the sentencing guidelines, considered totality and mitigation, and imposed an extended sentence because the offender is dangerous. A custodial term is not manifestly excessive where the offending merits substantial imprisonment and the sentencing assessment is unimpeachable.

The applicant pleaded guilty to 22 sexual offences involving children and received an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years’ custody and an extended licence period of five years. He applied out of time for leave to appeal against sentence, relying principally on his role as carer for his bed-bound wife and on his own physical and mental health difficulties.

The notice of appeal was 305 days late. The Court accepted the explanation for the delay, but made the extension question depend on the substantive merits of the proposed appeal. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s mitigation and whether the sentence was excessive.

1. Application refused. The Court accepted the applicant’s explanation for the delay and his medical difficulties. It nevertheless considered that the extension of time should depend on the substantive merits. There was no merit in the renewed application for leave to appeal.
2. The applicant’s caring responsibilities, deteriorating health and mental health difficulties did not undermine the sentence. His offending was deliberate, pre-planned and predatory, involved numerous serious sexual offences against young children, and necessarily merited a significant period of imprisonment. Separation from his wife was an inevitable consequence of such offending and did not make the sentence excessive.
3. The sentencing judge had properly assessed harm and culpability by reference to the sentencing guidelines. She had taken appropriate account of totality and mitigating factors. She was clearly entitled to assess the applicant as dangerous and to impose an extended sentence.
4. The custodial element was neither manifestly excessive nor excessive. The Court observed that many judges might have imposed longer sentences. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the applicant renewed his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. The application was refused.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: on 29 February 2024, HHJ Pierpoint imposed an extended sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years’ custody and an extended licence period of five years.