[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Collins, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 519 (11 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/519.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 519

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEWES/CHICHESTER
(HHJ MARK VAN DER ZWART/HHJ JANET WADDICOR/HHJ JEREMY DONNE) [T20217162 T20217031]

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		11 April 2025

MR JUSTICE HILLIARD:

1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall, during that person's lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
2. On 26 February 2021, in the Crown Court at Lewes, the appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of making indecent photographs of a child and possession of a controlled drug of Class B. On 4 January 2022, he pleaded guilty to five counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child, taking indecent photographs of a child, assault by battery, racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress and possession of a controlled drug of Class B with intent to supply. On 18 July 2022, he was sentenced as follows:

Sexual activity with a child, 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Sexual activity with a child, an extended sentence with a custodial term of 9 years and an extension period of 6 years.

Two further offences of sexual activity with a child, 5 years' imprisonment on each count.

One further offence of sexual activity with a child, 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Taking indecent photographs of a child, 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Assault by battery, 1 month imprisonment.

Three offences of making indecent photographs of a child, a total of 9 months' imprisonment.

Racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, 4 weeks' imprisonment. Possessing controlled drugs with intent to supply, 9 months' imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also made the subject of a restraining order and a sexual harm prevention order, although these were expressed as being contrary in each case to legislation which has now been superseded by the Sentencing Act 2020. The orders should have been made contrary to section 360 and section 343 respectively of the Sentencing Act 2020. Nothing turns on this but the record must be corrected. A number of other offences, including three counts of rape were ordered to lie on the file.

3. He now renews applications for an extension of time of 228 days and for leave to appeal against sentence, after refusal by the Single Judge. There was a renewed application to appeal against conviction but that application was abandoned with the consent of the court at the start of the hearing.
4. He has the benefit of a representation order granted by the Registrar as regards the appeal against sentence and we grant the application for an extension of time and we grant leave to appeal against sentence.
5. The facts of the case were as follows. The first complainant ("A") met the appellant when she was 14 and he was 24. Sexual activity, including vaginal intercourse, took place on a number of occasions. On two occasions, the activity was filmed covertly by the appellant. The appellant groomed A and the second complainant ("B"). He provided them with alcohol and cannabis. A and B were both vulnerable and there was a significant disparity between their ages and his. He lied to them about his age, saying that he was younger than he was. A and B engaged in sexual activity on a number of occasions with the appellant. No protection was used and each of them was at risk of pregnancy and disease. He was controlling and bullying towards A and encouraged her to send him images of herself masturbating. He was aggressive towards her and on one occasion he assaulted her by throwing her across a room causing bruising to her knee. The relationship between the appellant and A lasted for 3 years. He had met B when she was 15 and sexual activity with her took place in the summer of 2018.
6. After the appellant was arrested a number of indecent images of different categories were found on his telephone. Cannabis was found at his home address. He had used racially aggravated words towards a police officer when he was being taken to the police station.
7. The appellant was 30 years old when he was sentenced. He had one previous court appearance in 2009, when he received a community punishment order for going equipped for theft and possessing a bladed article.
8. The judge had a psychiatric report which said that the appellant had had problems with his mental health and with alcohol and drugs. He suffered with depression and anxiety and had been prescribed medication. The author thought that his mental health problems were complicated by a long-standing misuse of alcohol, cannabis and cocaine. It was said when he was not abusing substances and when presenting with more mild symptoms he did not present as dangerous from a mental health perspective.
9. To the author of a pre-sentence report the appellant said that at the time of the offending, he was most probably sexually attracted to underage girls but said that that was no longer the case. He said that he was drinking heavily at the time and using drugs. He was assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to children. Given the length of time over which the offences had been perpetrated, it was said that there was an evident pattern of sexual offending against children.
10. When he passed sentence, the judge said that the appellant was to be sentenced for offences involving sexual activity with two complainants aged 15 years of age at the time. The guilty pleas to four counts of sexual activity with a child reflected the period from 30 September 2017 to 1 August 2018 for A, with a multiple incident count reflecting sexual activity on no fewer than five occasions. The plea in relation to B was a single count. The judge said that he would pass a sentence on the multiple-incident count of sexual activity which would reflect the overall offending and impose concurrent sentences for the remaining counts.
11. The judge accepted that A was a vulnerable and troubled 14-year-old when the appellant first met her and while she had told him she was 16, the same day she told him she was 14. He was 28 but told her that he was 24. The appellant was coercive and controlling, and engaged in sexual activity with A on occasions when she was consenting and on other occasions when she was less inclined. His controlling behaviour persuaded her to send him indecent images of herself and then, following his arrest and charge, he contacted A from prison using a cell mate's phone and repeatedly called her and attempted to persuade her to withdraw her support for the prosecution.
12. The judge said that the offences were aggravated by the covert filming of the sexual intercourse and sexual activity and the appellant's behaviour towards A, which meant that she spent more time away from her family, causing them distress and impacting on her own behaviour and personality. He said that the appellant targeted young and vulnerable girls. Both were aged 15 when the sexual activity took place and on each occasion the appellant refused to take precautions and exposed them to pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The judge determined that the appellant, whilst immature for his chronological age and suffering from an anxiety and depressive syndrome and substance use disorder, did present a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public by the commission of further specified offences and was dangerous. The extended determinate sentence of 15 years was imposed pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. There is now no appeal against the judge's finding that the appellant was a dangerous offender.
13. The Registrar provided a representation order so far as the appeal against sentence is concerned, solely because the extended sentence for engaging in sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act was unlawful. The maximum sentence for the offence is 14 years' imprisonment. The term of an extended sentence is the aggregate of the custodial term and the extended licence period and the aggregate cannot exceed the maximum sentence for the offence for which it is imposed (see section 280(5) of the Sentencing Act 2020). There is no dispute that the judge was in error.
14. Accordingly, as we have said, we grant the extension of time to appeal against sentence and grant leave to appeal against sentence. We quash the sentence on count 5 and substitute for it an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising a custodial term of 9 years and an extension period of 5 years. All the other sentences are unaltered.