R. v P and others [2025] EWCA 1241, EWCA Crim 1242
An appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal (CoA) by the Attorney General under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme against the sentencing of the 10 defendants for numerous child sexual exploitation offences. Most of the defendants were young adults with one being 17 at the time the offences were committed.
Details
The defendants had been convicted by the Liverpool Crown Court in April 2025 of numerous offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 03) in relation to what the CoA termed a “gang grooming case”. The offences took place in Bolton over a 30-month period from 2016 to 2018. The victims were six female children aged between the ages of 13 and 15 at the time the offences took place.
The Crown Court had passed sentences of imprisonment for the 10 offenders for periods varying from 17 years to two years. The Attorney General appealed to the CoA under s. 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 88) on the basis that the sentences were unduly lenient.
The CoA declined to increase the sentences in all but one of the defendants and dismissed the the Attorney General’s References.
In the case of one of the defendants, the Court of Appeal upheld his 12-year sentence, finding it was not unduly lenient. Although the offending was extremely serious, the Court accepted that significant weight had to be given to B’s age (17 at the time) and his lack of parental support, including the fact the offences took place in his father’s home. The sentencing judge had correctly started with a 20-year notional adult sentence reflecting the gravity and “campaign” nature of the offences, before applying a 40% reduction in line with the guidelines for children and young people. The Court confirmed that this approach was appropriate and not open to criticism.
The CoA allowed the Attorney General’s appeal in respect of only one of the defendants stating that he was ‘significantly more culpable than any of the other offenders’ [para 37]AD, whose sentence was increased
Commentary
Despite the seriousness of the offending, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that children and young adults must be sentenced in accordance with distinct principles that recognise age, maturity and vulnerability, and resisted any attempt to dilute those protections through the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme. The decision confirms that substantial reductions to reflect youth remain appropriate, even in grave cases, and that the ULS scheme is not a mechanism for increasing sentences simply because they may appear low when compared to adult offenders. Practitioners should be particularly alert when representing those at the age threshold, as the approach to sentencing can differ markedly depending on whether an individual is treated as a child or young adult; further guidance is available in YJLC’s Turning 18 guide.