R v Darren Hugh Hollywood
[2024] EWCA Crim 591
R v Dylan Joshua Benjamin Marshall
14 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1640
Court of Appeal
A man was wrongly given a long prison sentence for sharing indecent images of children when he only pleaded guilty to making them. The court changed his sentence to a community order (probation) with supervision and therapy, and shortened other requirements because of the mistake.
Key Facts
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to three charges relating to indecent images of children (categories A, B, and C).
- •Images found on appellant's iPhone included 35 category A images (17 unique), 4 unique category B videos, and 25 unique category C images (21 images, 4 videos).
- •Appellant initially denied seeing indecent images but later admitted sending images to others in an online network, stating the images were of girls he knew.
- •The judge initially considered sentencing under the possession guideline but then switched to the distribution guideline, resulting in a harsher sentence.
- •Appellant was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment on each count (concurrent).
Legal Principles
Sentences should reflect only the offences of which the defendant has been convicted or has pleaded guilty.
R v Canavan [1998] 1 WLR 604
The offence of distribution of indecent photographs is a separate offence from making them under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Protection of Children Act 1978, sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b)
Where there is a sufficient prospect of rehabilitation, a community order with a Sex Offender Treatment Programme requirement can be a proper alternative to a short or moderate length custodial sentence.
Sentencing Guideline (implied)
Outcomes
The original sentences of 30 months' imprisonment were quashed.
The judge wrongly sentenced the appellant for distribution when he had pleaded guilty to making indecent images. The court followed R v Canavan and the sentencing was wrong in principle.
A community order was imposed, including an accredited programme requirement and a rehabilitation activity requirement.
This was in accordance with the pre-sentence report's recommendation and considered the appellant's circumstances and the prospect of rehabilitation.
The notification requirements and Sexual Harm Prevention Order duration reduced from ten years to five years.
This reflects the reduction in sentence from imprisonment to a community order.