R v Dafydd Garry Palfrey

For attempted sexual offending involving a decoy whom the offender believed to be a child, harm is assessed by reference to the intended sexual activity. Where that activity involves vaginal penetration, Level 1 harm and an A1 five-year starting point are appropriate. The absence of an actual child victim calls for only a small, case-specific reduction where the offence would otherwise have been completed; the fact of attempt attracts no further reduction. A sentencing judge need not quantify every mitigating feature separately where the relevant matters were addressed and the overall sentence demonstrates substantial mitigation. Post-offence rehabilitation may be relevant but does not require a further reduction where the offender still needs to address factors contributing to the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and to attempted sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received 34 months’ imprisonment on the first count and a concurrent sentence of eight months on the second.

He appealed on the grounds that the culpability category, the decoy reduction, and the allowances for remorse, good character and rehabilitation were inadequate. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had applied the guideline incorrectly or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Guideline classification. There was no challenge to the assessment of culpability as category A. Given that the intended sexual activity involved vaginal penetration, the sentencing judge was right to assess harm at Level 1 and to identify the five-year starting point for an A1 offence.
2. Decoy circumstances and attempt. The applicable guideline required harm to be assessed by reference to the intended sexual activity. Because there was no actual child victim, the judge was entitled to make only a small reduction from the five-year figure. This was a case in which, but for the decoy circumstances, the offence would otherwise have been completed. The fact that the offence was attempted did not justify an additional reduction.
3. Mitigation. The judge had referred to the absence of relevant previous convictions, remorse and the other matters relied on in mitigation. After the decoy reduction, the aggravating features and the second offence had been taken into account, the notional sentence of four years and three months demonstrated that significant allowance had been made for mitigation. The absence of separately quantified reductions did not establish an error.
4. Rehabilitation and appellate review. The appellant’s reduction in alcohol and drug consumption was a positive step, but the pre-sentence report showed that he still had work to do in addressing the factors that had precipitated the offending. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The custodial sentences and the Sexual Harm Prevention Order therefore remained undisturbed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 25 March 2026, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 487.
2. Crown Court at Cardiff: The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 7 October 2025 to 34 months’ imprisonment on count 1 and eight months concurrently on count 2. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed for 10 years.