R v Anandarajah Bremakumar
[2023] EWCA Crim 545
R v Terry James Pocock
14 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 771
Court of Appeal
A man was caught trying to lure a 13-year-old girl (actually a decoy) into having sex online. The judge gave him a suspended sentence, but the Court of Appeal thought that was too light and gave him almost three years in prison instead because his actions were serious and he has a long history of bad behavior.
Key Facts
- •Terry James Pocock (39) pleaded guilty to attempting to incite a girl under 16 to engage in penetrative sexual activity.
- •Offence occurred over two weeks in January 2022 via Facebook with a decoy profile.
- •Pocock sent explicit messages, a picture of his erect penis, and arranged a meeting.
- •He was initially charged in May 2022 and initially pleaded not guilty.
- •He pleaded guilty on 28 November 2023 after multiple delays.
- •The Crown Court at Ipswich sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months.
- •Pocock has an extensive criminal record (40 convictions) including offences of damage, harassment, assault, and non-compliance with previous sentences.
- •The judge considered mitigating factors such as Pocock's mental health issues (ADHD, emotionally unstable personality disorder) and efforts to address substance abuse.
- •The Attorney General referred the case due to the sentence being unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for sexual activity with a child, including incitement (section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003). In cases where incitement is attempted but doesn't result in contact, the harm category is based on intended activity, with a downward adjustment for no actual harm. A small reduction is usually appropriate if the offender was only prevented by police or others from completing the offence.
Sentencing Guideline for Sexual Activity with a Child
Credit for a guilty plea. A significant delay in entering a guilty plea, particularly after the trial date has passed, may result in reduced credit.
R v Carter [2021] EWCA Crim 667
When considering whether to suspend a sentence, the court should apply the relevant guideline.
Implied from the judgment.
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence.
The original sentence was unduly lenient due to an incorrect application of sentencing guidelines, insufficient consideration of the gravity of the offence, and inappropriate credit for the guilty plea.
A 37-month immediate prison sentence was substituted.
The Court considered a starting point of four years based on the guideline for Category 1A offences, reduced to 3.5 years for lack of actual harm, and further reduced by five months for the guilty plea.
Other orders (Sexual Harm Prevention Order, victim surcharge) were amended.
To reflect the change in sentence length and for clarity.