[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Harrison, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 3170 (11 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/3170.html Cite as: [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 43, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 43, [2008] EWCA Crim 3170

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Thursday, 11th December 2008

1. MR JUSTICE GROSS: On 19th October 2007 in the Crown Court at Lewes, the appellant, aged 38, pleaded guilty to counts 2 to 6. On 8th November 2007 he pleaded guilty to count 8 and on 10th December 2007 His Honour Judge Kemp sentenced the appellant as follows: on count 2, sexual activity with a child, 2 years' imprisonment concurrent to count 3. On counts 3 to 6, sexual activity with a child, four counts of that, 5 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent. Count 8, possession of an indecent image of a child, 12 months' imprisonment consecutive. The total sentence was thus 6 years' imprisonment less the number of days that the appellant had spent in custody on remand. In addition a sexual offences prevention order was made under section 104 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Certain other counts were left on file. The appellant appeals against his sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. The facts are these. On 9th November 2006 the parents of an 11-year-old girl became concerned as to her use of her mobile phone. Her mother checked the phone and then passed it to her husband because it became clear that there were a number of sexually explicit texts which had been sent to her. The texts grew more explicit and contained descriptions of what the sender wanted to do to her. The parents confronted the girl and she gave details of a website that she had visited and who she had been communicating with. It showed that she had been communicating with a man called Mr Kit. The police were contacted. The girl revealed in interview that the man she had been communicating with wanted to meet her and wanted to go to a hotel with her and had stated that he wanted to have sex with her. She also revealed that she had sent an indecent image of the bottom half of herself wearing only a thong. The police enquires revealed that the sender of the messages and the recipient of the image was the appellant. That is count 8.
3. On 10th December 2006 the appellant was arrested. His computer was examined and it was found that he had solicited the image from the 11 year old by asking for a picture of her, as he put it, "titties" or "pussy".
4. When interviewed he admitted sending messages to the girl since October 2006 but he was adamant that he had no intention of carrying out the stated intention in those messages of meeting her and having intercourse with her.
5. As a result of this investigation his mobile telephone was interrogated and the police followed up on certain other numbers. One of those belonged to a 14-year-old girl who the appellant had contacted over the Internet. She had revealed her age, so he, well over 30, knew that she was 14.
6. When she was interviewed, she revealed that after their contact with one another over the Internet she had agreed to meet him and he had picked her up from school. He had taken her to his home. He cooked her a meal. They watched a DVD together. He touched her bottom and breasts over her clothing. That gave rise to count 2. Matters, however, developed from there. She subsequently met him three days later, on 16th September 2006. They went to his home. They had full sexual intercourse (count 3). Thereafter they would meet on Wednesdays and Saturdays, eventually just on Saturdays for the rest of September, October and November and they would have intercourse at his home. She disclosed that he had always worn a condom.
7. He was subsequently arrested in respect of those offences. When interviewed he gave a full account of his relationship with her and explained that he knew what he was doing was wrong but that he was suffering from depression. He admitted that he knew she was 14 when he had first met her.
8. Passing sentence, the experienced judge said that the appellant had to be sentenced for indulging in full sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl over a period of time and possession of an indecent image of an 11-year-old girl. At the time of the offences he was lonely and depressed following the breakdown of a relationship and had turned to his computer and the Internet for solace. That was the reason for his relationships with both these girls.
9. In September 2006 he formed a relationship with a 14-year-old and he had a full sexual relationship, notwithstanding the knowledge of her age. The relationship persisted for some three months. Thereafter he engaged in chat with the 11 year old over the Internet. The chat was an overtly sexual nature. He had asked the child to send in an image of her and she had sent him one of herself clad only in knickers.
10. He was of good character but seemed to have little comprehension of the harm that he might have caused by the commission of these offences. He was the adult and however these children had sought his company, he was responsible for what had occurred. Although he had ended the relationship with the 14 year old, it had taken some three months to come to his senses and do that. It was to his credit that he had pleaded guilty. Account was taken of all the matters advanced in mitigation but a custodial sentence was inevitable. A sexual offences prevention order was also made. However, it has come to light that no order was made disqualifying the appellant from working with children, a mandatory order and a matter of which this court has helpfully been reminded by the Registrar.
11. In the grounds of appeal, counsel, Miss Scott-Beckett, to whom we are grateful, submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Insufficient credit was given for his guilty pleas and insufficient account was taken of the mitigation, lack of aggravating features and the sentencing guidelines. Developing those submissions today, Miss Scott-Beckett underlined the fact that the relationship was consensual. Sex had taken place with precautions. The relationship with the 14 year old had been terminated by the appellant himself, and in particular having regard to the guidelines, the sentence passed was manifestly excessive. Realistically Miss Scott-Beckett did not resist the imposition of a disqualification order regardless of what else we might do with the sentence.
12. The appellant was hitherto a man of good character. It is sad indeed that he has, as the learned judge observed, lost that good character in so spectacular a fashion. But these are serious offences, involving both full sexual intercourse and what may be called grooming. There is a substantial age gap between the appellant and both girls. A substantial prison sentence was inevitable. What remains is whether the sentence passed was manifestly excessive.
13. We shall put one matter out of the way at the outset. Sentencing is not an arithmetically precise exercise. Guidelines are guidelines. A mechanistic approach cannot be supported. We have been referred to a number of authorities helpfully by Miss Scott-Beckett but it is unnecessary to list those. None are precisely in point. This case involved two young girls. It involved grooming, as that word has become to be understood. It involved full penetrative intercourse over a substantial period of time with a 14 year old. True it is, as Miss Scott-Beckett has submitted, that the relationship was consensual but one of the objects of the law in this area is to protect vulnerable young people from themselves.
14. Our task is to look at the sentence in total. Having done so, we are unable to conclude that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It was severe. It may have been at the top end of what is unobjectionable but it was not manifestly excessive. Put another way, any reduction would involve tinkering only. The appeal against the length of the custodial sentence must therefore be dismissed.
15. As to the remaining orders, some concern was voiced that the sexual offences prevention order was for an indefinite period of time. There is, as counsel rightly accept, no difficulty with that. The statute, by section 107, expressly permits an order to be made until further order and that is precisely what happened here.
16. For completeness and finally, a disqualification order must be added, and we do so.