R v Alan Ludar-Smith
[2024] EWCA Crim 199
R v Leon Roach
18 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 211
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long sentence for trying to have sex with a child online and breaking rules about his past crimes. The court decided the sentence was too harsh because he didn't actually hurt a child and reduced his prison time. The reduced sentence still reflects that he is a danger to children.
Key Facts
- •Leon Roach (appellant) was sentenced to an extended sentence of 8 years (4 years custodial, 4 years extended license) for attempting to cause a boy (13-15) to engage in non-penetrative sexual activity.
- •He received concurrent 18-month sentences for two offences under s.7 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (barred activity and DBS application).
- •Previous convictions for similar offences, including breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).
- •The attempted sexual activity involved online communication with a decoy from a paedophile hunter group.
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.
- •Judge considered the appellant dangerous and imposed an extended sentence.
Legal Principles
In cases with no actual child victim (attempt offences), harm should be assessed based on intended harm, with a small downward adjustment to the sentence.
Reed & Anor v The Queen [2021] EWCA Crim 572
Sentencing for breach of SHPO can be used as guidance for similar safeguarding offences where specific guidelines are absent.
Case law implied by the Court's reasoning.
Totality principle in sentencing: Sentences for multiple offences should reflect the overall criminality.
Case law implied by the Court's reasoning.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part. The sentence for the sexual offence was reduced from 4 years to 3 years.
The original sentence failed to adequately account for the absence of an actual victim in the attempted sexual activity offence, per Reed. The court adjusted the sentence downwards, considering mitigating factors (mental health conditions) and the totality principle.
The sentence for the safeguarding offences was reduced from 18 months to 10 months concurrent.
The original sentence was considered manifestly excessive given comparable sentencing guidelines for SHPO breaches and the lack of additional aggravating factors beyond those already considered in the sexual offence.
The extended licence period of 4 years remained unchanged.
The court agreed with the judge's assessment that the appellant was dangerous and that the extended licence period was necessary.