R v Peter Sanderson
[2023] EWCA Crim 859
R v Hazrat Kharutti
1 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 377
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 8 years in prison for online child sex offences. The appeals court thought this was too long because the online conversations were short, and it took a long time for the case to get to court. They reduced his sentence to 4 years and 6 months.
Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of two counts of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and one count of arranging or facilitating a child sexual offence.
- •Offences occurred over a few days in November 2018 involving online communication with a decoy posing as a 13-year-old girl.
- •Appellant arranged a meeting with the decoy, which led to his arrest by paedophile hunters.
- •Appellant had one previous conviction for unrelated matters.
- •Original sentence: 8 years imprisonment (count 3) concurrent with 4 years (counts 1 & 2), 15-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, £170 surcharge.
- •Significant delay between the offence (Nov 2018) and sentencing (Aug 2023).
Legal Principles
In cases where there is no actual child or the intended sexual activity did not take place, the assessment of harm should be based on what the offender intended.
R v Reed & Ors [2021] EWCA Crim 572
Sentencing guidelines for offences contrary to section 9 and 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply to offences contrary to section 14.
Revised guideline, referenced in the judgment
Proportionate sentencing is crucial, considering the duration and nature of the offending.
Implicit in the Court of Appeal's judgment
Sentencing should account for delays in proceedings, particularly when the delay is not attributable to the defendant.
Implicit in the Court of Appeal's judgment
Outcomes
Appeal allowed. Original sentences quashed.
The original sentence was deemed disproportionate given the short duration of the offending and the significant delay in proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that the upward adjustment from the starting point involved double-counting and that the sentence was out of line with similar cases.
New sentence imposed: 4 years 6 months imprisonment on count 3, concurrent with 3 years on counts 1 and 2.
This sentence reflects a reduction based on the short duration of offending, the absence of a real child, limited mitigation, and the significant delay in the case.