R v Arun Drewett

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, leave should be refused where it is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considered both in relation to its components and in the round. The sentencing judge is entitled to assess offence category, including deliberate and targeted conduct, and appellate courts should recognise the trial judge’s advantage in making that assessment. A downward adjustment may reflect an attempted offence involving a decoy. Serious and persistent breaches of a sexual harm prevention order may justify severe treatment and a lengthy order where the offender presents a continuing risk. A concurrent sentence may make a separate registration failure immaterial to the overall sentence.

The applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames in June 2025 to a total of five years and three months’ imprisonment for attempting to cause a 13-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity, breaching a notification requirement, four breaches of a sexual harm prevention order, and activation of a suspended sentence order. The order was revoked and reimposed indefinitely. A single judge refused leave to appeal on the papers. The applicant renewed the application, challenging the sentence as manifestly excessive and raising related issues concerning the order, registration failure and extension of time. The central issue was whether any ground was arguable.

The court, in a judgment given by Mrs Justice Thornton, unanimously refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Attempted sexual offending. A sentence of two years and six months for the attempt was not arguably manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in category A2, having found that it was deliberate and targeted. The court gave weight to the fact that she had been the trial judge and was well placed to make that assessment. The judge had also made a downward adjustment to reflect the use of a decoy.
2. Mitigation. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had taken account of the applicant’s mental health problems and mitigation.
3. Breaches of the sexual harm prevention order. The judge was entitled to treat the breaches, particularly the first, as serious and persistent, involving flagrant disregard for a court order.
4. Duration of the order. In view of the applicant’s serious and concerning conduct while subject to the suspended order, the judge was entitled to impose the sexual harm prevention order for the period selected. The approach of combining a lengthy custodial sentence with an extended order was a permissible means of addressing the risk posed by the applicant. The court noted that a different approach might have exposed him to an extended sentence order.
5. Other matters. The failure to register the new bank card was not significant to the sentence because the relevant sentence was concurrent. The argument concerning activation of the suspended sentence in full was no longer pursued. Since the application failed on its merits, it was unnecessary to determine the application for an extension of time.

Looking at the sentence in the round, the court was not persuaded that excessiveness was arguable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 17 June 2026, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The application for an extension of time was not considered.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: In June 2025, the applicant was sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment and a sexual harm prevention order was revoked and reimposed for an indefinite period.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused on the papers.