R v Stuart Latham

A sentence for extensive sexual offending against children must be assessed by standing back and applying totality to the offending as a whole. The court must consider both custodial and extended licence elements of an extended sentence. Individual offence categorisations and reductions for guilty pleas should not be disturbed where they fall within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Relative youth and immaturity may justify substantial personal mitigation for a young adult, even where the offender acted deceitfully and manipulatively. The sentence may properly be longer than for a child under 18 but shorter than for a fully mature adult above 25. Leave to refer may therefore be granted without increasing the sentence where, viewed overall, it is not unduly lenient.

The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sought leave to challenge its alleged undue leniency. The respondent had received an extended sentence of 22 years from His Honour Judge Philip Parry at the Crown Court at Preston on 19 September 2025, comprising 14 years' custody and an eight-year extension period. He had pleaded guilty to numerous sexual offences, blackmail and image offences involving multiple child victims. The reference principally challenged the overall sentence and the reductions allowed for age and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient when the offending was assessed in its entirety.

Disposition

Leave to refer was granted. Having considered the reference, the court declined to increase the sentence because it was not unduly lenient.

1. Individual sentences. The offence categorisations adopted by the sentencing judge were within the range reasonably open to him. The reductions for guilty pleas were also unobjectionable. Given the scale of the offending and the chronology of the pleas, a 25 per cent reduction across the board could reasonably have been used.
2. Age and personal mitigation. A sentencing judge may take account of the relative youth and immaturity of an offender who was a young adult when the offences were committed. The resulting sentence may be longer than one imposed on a child under 18 but shorter than one imposed on a fully mature adult above 25. That approach is not precluded by findings that the offender was deceitful, manipulative or predatory. The offender's personal circumstances also included his having previously been subjected to online abuse. A reduction of 15 to 20 per cent, or possibly slightly more, was open to the judge overall, although a 37 per cent reduction on individual counts was at or beyond the outer limits of reasonableness.
3. Totality. The assessment had to address the different offences, victims and periods of offending as a whole. The court considered the 14-year custodial term, after credit for plea, comparable to a sentence of about 25 years for a fully mature adult before personal mitigation and plea credit. The eight-year extension period was an integral part of the overall sentence and had to be considered with the custodial term.
4. Final assessment. Standing back and reviewing the sentence from every angle, the court concluded that it was carefully crafted, proportionate and consistent with totality. The application therefore did not justify intervention to increase it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General's reference was heard under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Leave was granted, but the court declined to increase the sentence.
• Crown Court at Preston: His Honour Judge Philip Parry imposed an extended sentence of 22 years on 19 September 2025, comprising 14 years' custody and an eight-year extension period.