R v Robert Burns

Earlier convictions and sentences for separate, more serious offences do not justify treating new offending as attracting little additional punishment. The offence category must be assessed by reference to the conduct intended, including its harm and culpability. An impairment or disorder may affect culpability where sufficiently connected with the offending. Awareness that conduct was illegal does not prevent ASD, cognitive impairment and limited empathy from being considered as personal mitigation. Those matters must be balanced against previous convictions, repeated breaches of protective orders, persistent offending and assessed risk of serious harm. An extended sentence is justified where evidence shows that treatment and intervention are required to manage that risk. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty before Birmingham Magistrates' Court on 9 July 2025 and was committed for sentence. On 31 October 2025, the Crown Court at Birmingham imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years under the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising four years' custody and five years' extended licence, for attempting to arrange or facilitate a child sex offence and other sexual offences.

The appeal challenged the treatment of earlier convictions, the effect of psychiatric and psychological evidence, the categorisation of the leading offence, and the imposition of an extended sentence. The central issues were the proper weight of previous offending, the relevance of mental and developmental disorders to culpability and mitigation, and whether the sentence was excessive or wrong in principle.

Appeal dismissed. The court rejected the argument that the sentence should have involved little additional punishment because of the appellant's earlier convictions. Those matters concerned separate offences, and the present offences were more serious. They therefore carried only limited weight in the present sentencing exercise.

1. The categorisation of the leading offence was assessed by reference to the sexual activity the appellant intended to arrange. The intended sexual assault included touching the proposed victim's genitalia, engaging category 2 factors. The planning, involvement of others and potential commercial exploitation supported culpability A. The correct starting point was four years, before aggravating features and the other offences were taken into account.
2. The psychiatric and psychological evidence engaged the sentencing guidelines for offenders with mental or developmental disorders. An impairment or disorder may affect culpability where sufficiently connected with the offending. The appellant's awareness that his conduct was illegal did not remove the relevance of ASD, limited empathy and cognitive functioning to his ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions. Although the sentencing judge had not expressly addressed this aspect, she was clearly aware of the relevant reports. Those matters had to be considered as personal mitigation, together with the early guilty plea, regular probation attendance and the impact of the appellant's conditions on his quality of life.
3. That mitigation had to be balanced against the repeated child sexual offending, previous convictions and repeated breaches of the sexual harm prevention order. The reports described a very high risk of serious harm to children. They supported both an increased sentence and an extended sentence because treatment and intervention were required to manage the risk.
4. The six-year custodial term before credit for the guilty pleas accounted for the aggravating and mitigating factors and all the offences. It remained within the guideline range for the leading offence alone. It could not be described as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The extended licence period was justified. The nine-year extended determinate sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020 was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 30 June 2026, in [2026] EWCA Crim 995 , dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 31 October 2025, HHJ Kubik KC imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years under the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising four years' custody and five years' extended licence.
• Birmingham Magistrates' Court: On 9 July 2025, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.