R v Dylan Joshua Benjamin Marshall
[2023] EWCA Crim 1640
R v BRD
14 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 739
Court of Appeal
A man was given a five-year prison sentence for possessing and making indecent images of children and secretly filming his stepdaughters. The appeal court thought the sentence was too long and reduced it to four years and two months because the judge didn't properly consider all the crimes together. They also corrected the judge's mistake about when he would be released from prison.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (54) pleaded guilty to taking indecent photographs of a child, making indecent photographs of a child, and voyeurism.
- •Offenses involved downloading 65,500 indecent images and videos, including images of children as young as 8.
- •Voyeurism involved filming two stepdaughters (C2 and C3) in the shower without their knowledge.
- •A photograph of a 16-year-old girl (C1), a friend of the stepdaughters, was also found.
- •Appellant received a five-year prison sentence with a ten-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a Restraining Order.
- •Appellant appealed against the sentence.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies regarding victim anonymity.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing guidelines for indecent image offences and voyeurism.
Sentencing Guidelines
Principle of totality in sentencing.
Case Law
Application of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 regarding automatic release.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
The original sentence of five years was deemed manifestly excessive due to insufficient application of the principle of totality. The sentence for making category A images was reduced.
Sentence on count 2 (Category A images) reduced.
The original notional sentence of 28 months was considered excessively severe and disproportionate, even accounting for the other offences.
Overall sentence reduced.
To ensure a just and proportionate sentence, the total imprisonment was reduced from five years to four years and two months.
Correction of information regarding automatic release.
The trial judge misinformed the appellant about the length of time he would serve before release on licence due to a misapplication of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.