R v Anandarajah Bremakumar
[2023] EWCA Crim 545
R v William Harrison
30 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1015
Court of Appeal
A man was given a lenient sentence for sexually abusing two young girls. The Court of Appeal increased his prison time because it was too short given the severity of his crimes and his history. They also made sure he'd be supervised after prison to protect children.
Key Facts
- •William Harrison (born 12 May 1961) pleaded guilty to two counts of causing or inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity (s.8(1) and (3) Sexual Offences Act 2003) and two counts of child abduction (s.2(1)(b) Child Abduction Act 1984).
- •The offences involved luring two 8-year-old girls into his car, showing them a picture of his penis, and offering them money to see it in person.
- •Harrison had a history of sexual offences, including an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence.
- •The original sentence was 4 years' imprisonment for the sexual offences, with no separate penalty for the abduction charges.
- •The Solicitor General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient.
- •Harrison's mobile phone contained sexually explicit material, including references to children.
Legal Principles
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows the Attorney General to refer sentences deemed unduly lenient.
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 prohibits publication of information identifying victims of sexual offences unless waived.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing guidelines should be followed, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.
Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline for offences under s.8 Sexual Offences Act 2003
An extended sentence can be imposed for dangerous offenders under s.280 Sentencing Code.
Sentencing Code s.280
Credit for guilty pleas should be reduced if the plea was entered late in the proceedings, potentially to zero if after the first day of trial.
Criminal Practice Directions 2023, paragraph 6.3.36; Definitive Guideline on Reduction for guilty pleas
On a s.36 reference, the Court of Appeal considers whether the original sentence falls outside the reasonable range; leave is granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
In considering dangerousness, the court should consider the risk on release and whether ancillary orders are sufficient to mitigate risk.
Bryant [2017] EWCA Crim 1662
Outcomes
The original sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was deemed unduly lenient.
The starting point for the sexual offences should have been 6 years, increased to reflect aggravating factors (previous convictions, two victims). Mitigation was limited, and the credit for guilty pleas was reduced due to the late entry of pleas after cross-examination of witnesses. The offender should have been deemed dangerous, warranting an extended sentence.
The sentence was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of 6 years' imprisonment and a 5-year extended licence period for each sexual offence, to run concurrently.
This reflects the seriousness of the offences, the offender's dangerousness and the need to protect the public.