R v David Lee Salisbury
[2024] EWCA Crim 551
R v Lucy Wilding
24 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1285
Court of Appeal
A young woman was convicted of sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl. She got an 18-month prison sentence. The judge considered her age and lack of past offences but also that the abuse was repeated and she ignored warnings to stop. The appeal court agreed with the sentence, saying it was justified given the seriousness of the crime.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (Lucy Wilding) pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual activity with a child and two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
- •The complainant was 13 when the relationship began with the appellant, who was 18.
- •The offences involved vaginal penetration and occurred over a four-month period.
- •The appellant initially denied the allegations but later admitted to a sexual relationship, claiming she believed the complainant was 16.
- •The complainant's mother intervened and tried to stop the relationship, but the appellant continued contact using fake social media accounts.
- •The appellant was 20 years old at sentencing and had no prior convictions.
- •The pre-sentence report assessed the appellant as high risk of re-offending and serious harm to children.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Reporting restrictions apply to prevent the identification of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing guidelines for sexual offences against children, considering culpability and harm.
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The court found the judge appropriately balanced mitigating and aggravating factors. The seriousness of the offending, including the repeated nature and the appellant's disregard for warnings, justified the immediate custodial sentence. The court did not find the judge erred in considering the risk of re-offending and insufficiently weighing rehabilitation prospects.
Appeal allowed to correct a technical defect in sentencing.
The judge incorrectly imposed terms of imprisonment rather than detention in a young offender institution given the appellant’s age.