R v Kelvin Fielding

Related offences arising from one incident should be sentenced together, with the sentence for each reflecting the totality of the conduct. A category 3 exposure offence may nevertheless justify custody where the offender is under arrest and on bail, and officers are attending to check compliance with notification requirements. Those circumstances may take the offence outside the guideline range. Even so, a sentence far above the guideline can be manifestly excessive. Here, eight months was excessive against a guideline whose starting point was a medium community order; about three months, consecutive to the other offences, was sufficient. A guilty-plea reduction cannot be made for an offence determined after trial.

Following guilty pleas to image offences and convictions after trials for assault on an emergency worker, exposure, and arranging or facilitating a child sexual offence, the Crown Court at Oxford imposed an overall sentence of six years and eight months. The sentencing judge imposed eight months consecutively for exposure, having treated the offence as aggravated by arrest and mistakenly applied a guilty-plea reduction. The appellant appealed that sentence only, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and should be concurrent or shorter. The Court of Appeal also considered the unrenewed sentence for arranging or facilitating, including whether the guideline for section 9 or, for the planned rape of a child under 13, section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was applicable. The central issue was the proper sentence for exposure in the context of the totality of the offending.

The appeal was allowed to the limited extent that the sentence for exposure was reduced.

1. The sentencing judge had erred by treating the exposure conviction, which followed a trial, as attracting a guilty-plea reduction. The Court of Appeal quashed the eight-month term and re-sentenced the appellant.
2. The court considered it right not to disturb the six-year sentence for arranging or facilitating a child sex offence. The applicable guideline required reference to the substantive offence. The planned conduct was, at least, rape of a child under 13 contrary to section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, attracting at least category 2A, with a starting point of 13 years and a range of 11 to 17 years. The prosecution and sentencing judge had wrongly used the guideline for section 9. Even under that guideline, however, the six-year sentence was far from manifestly excessive.
3. The judge was wrong to say that there were no guidelines for exposure. With no raised harm or culpability factors, the offence fell within category 3, with a starting point of a medium community order and a range from a band A fine to a high-level community order.
4. The exposure and assault offences had to be taken together, with the exposure sentence reflecting both. The appellant was under arrest, had been released on bail for other offending, and the officers were attending to check compliance with notification requirements. Those circumstances were aggravating, took the offence outside the guideline, and justified custody.
5. Eight months was so far outside the guideline as to be manifestly excessive. Taking account of the assault sentence and the principle of totality, a sentence of about three months was sufficient. It was properly consecutive because the exposure occurred while the appellant was on bail. The final sentence of six years and three months was not manifestly excessive. The eight-month sentence was quashed and three months substituted.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2026] EWCA Crim 916 : allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the exposure sentence from eight months to three months, consecutive to the other sentences.
2. Crown Court at Oxford: imposed an overall sentence of six years and eight months, including eight months consecutively for exposure.