R v Robert Aiden Castle [2025] EWCA Crim 535

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 535Case No 2025/00384/A3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice
Between
R E XCrown
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE WINCHESTER CROWN COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGDALE)
[44BB0477223]
Thursday 10 April 2025
B e f o r e:
THE LADY CARR OF WALTON-ON-THE-HILL
LADY CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
MR JUSTICE GOOSE
and
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
____________________
- v -
Between
ROBERT AIDEN CASTLE____________________Mr M Florida-James appeared for ApplicantMiss J Ledward KC appeared for Crown____________________APPROVED J U D G M E N TThis judgment was handed down ex tempore on Thursday 10 April 2025 in Court 4.Date 2025-04-10
[1]This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence which has been referred to the full court by the Registrar.[2]In October 2024, the applicant, who is 27 years old, pleaded guilty to a single offence of blackmail, contrary to section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968. On 24 January 2025, he was sentenced by His Honour Paul Dugdale to 26 months' imprisonment.

The Facts in Summary

[3]The complainant is a well-known Member of Parliament, with a political career which includes having been Chair of the Conservative Party and who remains a serving Member of Parliament.[4]On 23 January 2023, the complainant received an email from an email address "VickyChambers521@gmail.com". It was sent to his local parliamentary email address which was readily available to members of the public on the internet. The body of the email stated:
"I have a video recording that may be of interest to you if you wish to retain being a MP in the next general election. Please can you confirm your availability on 5 February @ 11:00 hrs in The Red Gate Inn. I will allow you to watch the video recording and then ask for a cash offer. Don't be late & table will be under Mrs bellow. Kind regards"
[5]The complainant, regarding the contents of the email to be threatening and intimidating, and designed to discredit his professional reputation and job as a MP, reported the matter to the police.[6]As part of the investigation, officers attended at the Red Gate Inn and spoke to staff. There was no booking under the name "Mrs bellow". Enquiries revealed that the email address had been created on 8 August 2022 from a Virgin Media account in the applicant's name. The applicant was arrested and interviewed under caution on 8 August 2023. He admitted sending the email using the address "VickyChambers". He said that he had used that address as he had not wanted to use his own for safety reasons. He worked as a medical technician in the nighttime economy, dealing with intoxicated people, overdoses and mental health issues.[7]He said that one of his female patients had made an allegation about the complainant, but said that he would not give any further details because of patient confidentiality. He believed that the comments had been overheard by one of his colleagues. He said that he was angry and upset that people in a position of power and trust "got away with things".[8]He said that the video referred to in his email was not of the alleged offence but was of himself talking about the allegations. He said that he had acted as he had because he struggled with anxiety and dyslexia. The Red Gate Inn was near to his place of work. The applicant could not recall if he attended the pub on 5 February 2023, but he had been to the pub before because he had lived in the area for a while. He accepted that the email account had been set up several months earlier and that it had been "bugging" him for some time. He said that he just wanted to call the complainant out.[9]In interview he denied intending to blackmail the complainant. He said that the email sounded bad, but that he was dyslexic; he had not intended it to sound that way. He wanted the money to give to a charity. His intention was, he said, that he would invite the complainant to transfer some money to a charity and did not intend to make financial gain for himself.[10]The applicant had two previous convictions: an offence of battery in 2013, for which he had received a Youth Referral Order; and an offence of criminal damage in 2015, for which he received another Youth Referral Order. There were reprimands and cautions in 2011 for criminal damage; in 2013 for theft; and in 2017 for criminal damage. The judge treated the applicant as being of good character. There were three character references in the applicant's favour.[11]Medical reports on the applicant recorded a difficult childhood, including the witnessing of domestic violence and family instability. As an adult, the applicant had developed a binge drinking habit. He had two young daughters who resided with his ex-partner but with whom he had frequent contact.[12]A consultant forensic psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with emotionally unstable/ borderline personality disorder, with impairment in interpersonal functioning. He had a lifelong neurodiversity which could impact on his perception of himself and others.[13]The author of a pre-sentence report opined that the applicant's offending was impacted by his mental health, with a motive to address wrongs that he perceived had been committed. The applicant demonstrated remorse, but did not understand fully the seriousness of his offence. The applicant was assessed as posing a medium risk of serious harm, in particular to those whom he considered to be abusing a position of power, authority or trust.[14]There was a victim personal statement from the complainant. He said that he received threats to life and abuse on a regular basis, but this was the first time that he had been the victim of a blackmail threat. The threat had added to the stress of other forms of abuse and had had a serious impact on the complainant's mental health and wellbeing. This, he said, could affect his capacity to carry out his job, and had had an effect on his personal and professional relationships.

The Sentence

[15]The judge considered culpability and harm as follows. As for culpability, he stated that, notwithstanding the applicant's mental health issues, this was an attempt to blackmail a vulnerable person performing an important public duty. As for harm, the judge described the complainant as vulnerable because of his job as a Member of Parliament. He stated that if Members of Parliament continued to be abused or blackmailed, no one would want to do the job. The harm was thus not only the direct harm, but the harm to the community as a whole.[16]The judge considered the offending to be serious, with an appropriate custodial term in the region of four years after trial. But taking into account the lack of financial loss, or real risk to the complainant, the judge arrived at a custodial term of 40 months. He reduced that period to take into account the applicant's mental health problems, the delay and his good character, to arrive at a custodial term of 35 months. With a 25% discount for guilty plea, the sentence imposed was thus one of 26 months' custody.[17]Suspension in those circumstances was not an option, but the judge went on to state that, even had he arrived at a sentence allowing suspension, the seriousness of the offending against a serving Member of Parliament was such that an immediate custodial sentence would still have been imposed.

The Grounds of Application

[18]Mr Florida-James submits that the starting point after trial of around 40 months was simply too high. The blackmail in this case was "almost childlike" and "bound to fail". He points to the fact that the applicant’s actions had not been politically motivated. Fundamentally, it is submitted that the judge failed properly to take into account the strong mitigating features in the applicant's favour, namely his admissions in interview, his early guilty plea, the lack of sophistication, the lack of any prospect of success in the blackmail, the lack of pursuance by way of further threats, the applicant's mental health problems, and his positive good character. It is suggested that a reduction of only five months to reflect these matters was insufficient.[19]Furthermore, it is said that the applicant is now someone who understands his condition, the need for medication, and the impact of not taking it. The reduction, it is suggested, for mitigating features should have been one of ten months, resulting, after credit for guilty plea, in a sentence of around 23 months' imprisonment. In those circumstances, suspension being an option, the sentence should have been suspended. Alternatively, the necessary deterrence could have been achieved by a considerably shorter immediate sentence of imprisonment.[20]For the respondent, Miss Ledward KC accepts that, without taking into account the particular position of the complainant as a MP, the sentence would have been manifestly excessive. But the fact that the offence was deliberately targeted at a serving MP increased both harm and culpability significantly, justifying the sentence that was imposed. She concedes that it is arguable that the credit given for mitigation was insufficient. But her overall position is that the ultimate sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Discussion

[21]The courts have long recognised blackmail as a very nasty offence – an "ugly and vicious" crime – for which the courts always impose severe deterrent sentences: see R v Roberts [2019] EWCA Crim 1931 at [32]. A serious view will always be taken, although the gravity of the offence will vary considerably. As a result, a relatively wide range of sentences is indicated in reported fact-specific decisions. In Attorney General's Reference Nos 11 and 12 of 2016 [2016] EWCA Crim 2312, however, the following general propositions were identified at [29]:(1) Blackmail is, by its very nature, an offence always to be considered as a very serious matter. Immediate terms of custody are ordinarily to be anticipated;(2) Offending of this nature justifies an element of deterrent sentencing;(3) Where the threats are of a kind to disclose discreditable or embarrassing conduct, be it true or false, that may, depending on the circumstances, make the matter even more serious;(4) Where the threats are not of such a kind, but are of the kind designed to extract money, the courts will not tolerate people taking the law into their own hands.[22]At the time of this sentencing exercise there was no Sentencing Council Guideline in place for the offence of blackmail. That position has changed. As of 1 April 2025, the Sentencing Council Guideline on Blackmail is effective. However, for these purposes that guideline was not to be taken into account. Rather, the approach to be adopted was that laid out in the Sentencing Council Guideline on Overarching Principles.[23]Thus, as the judge recognised, the correct approach was to reach a provisional sentence, taking into account the statutory maximum, any relevant sentencing judgments of this court, and definitive sentencing guidelines for analogous offences. The seriousness of the offending by reference to culpability and harm has to be assessed. Aggravating and mitigating factors then fall to be considered.[24]Aggravating factors include: planning, a vulnerable victim, and a victim providing a public service or performing a public duty at the time of the offence. The Guideline explains that this is to reflect the fact that people in public-facing roles are more exposed to the possibility of harm. Someone working in the public interest merits the additional protection of the courts.[25]Mitigating factors include: the absence of previous convictions, or relevant recent previous convictions; co-operation; and delay since apprehension.[26]In this case it was common ground that there were no specific authorities or sentencing guidelines for analogous offences, such as for fraud, of any real assistance on the facts of this case.[27]We do not regard the fact that there was, in truth, no scandalous behaviour to protect substantially diminishes the seriousness of the conduct. The gravamen of the blackmail offence is the making of unwarranted demands with threats. The fear engendered by the thought of having to deal with, and respond to, potentially reputation-destroying allegations, even if known to be false, means that the offence of blackmail is established. The complainant was told nothing more than that the applicant had "a video recording that may be of interest to you if you wish to retain being an MP". Whether there was a real risk to the complainant in fact, the complainant reasonably perceived there to be one. Nor was this a childlike threat; it was a threat of a serious allegation being revealed. The fact that no video of the alleged conduct in fact existed was, however, a circumstance of the offence which the judge rightly took into account in adjusting the sentence downwards from a term of four years.[28]We do not consider that the complainant could properly be described as “vulnerable”, as such (though he was clearly exposed through his position as a MP). Beyond that, we can discern no error in the judge's approach.[29]The central and most striking feature of the case is that the applicant targeted a public figure in his capacity as a public servant. The fact that the approach was not politically motivated is irrelevant. The complainant's status as a public servant, namely a MP, was front and centre of the blackmail threat, as the contents of the email reveal. As the judge recognised, the harm in this case was therefore not limited to the obvious and direct harm to the complainant as an individual, though that was grave enough. The actual or potential effect of such offending could be highly corrosive, both on the individual's attitude to public service and also on the willingness of others to engage in public service.[30]It should be clearly understood that the courts will do their best to protect public servants in that capacity and that, when it comes to sentencing, the wider effect of such an offence will be regarded as materially aggravating the seriousness of the offending.[31]In addition, it was legitimate to pass a sentence with a very strong deterrent element. Deterrence is a legitimate sentencing aim, as set out in section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020. A court's perception of the strength of the need for deterrence can change over time: see R v Trowland and Decker [2023] EWCA Crim 919 at [86]. The context here is an environment of increasing threats and incidents of physical violence and online abuse of Members of Parliament. Thus, in our judgment, on any view, a severe custodial sentence was required. A custodial term of three years and four months, before reduction for mitigation and credit for guilty plea, was not manifestly excessive.[32]As for mitigating features, the judge clearly had in mind all of the mitigating factors now relied upon, including the applicant's mental health and his effective good character. There is no basis for appellate interference with his assessment that a reduction of five months should be made to reflect these matters.[33]The upshot of our analysis is that there was no error of principle in the judge's approach to sentencing, and that the sentence of 26 months' custody is not manifestly excessive.[34]The question of suspension does not therefore arise. However, even if the sentence had been one open to suspension, the judge would have been entitled to regard the offending as so serious as to warrant an immediate custodial term. That is not to say that a sentence of less than 24 months for blackmail could not, in appropriate circumstances, be suspended: see R v Sullivan [2021] EWCA Crim 248. Whether or not a sentence is apt for suspension will depend on various factors, although an important consideration in cases of blackmail may be that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.

Conclusion

[35]For these reasons, whilst we grant leave to appeal, we dismiss the appeal. ____________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________