R v Jeffrey Legg [2025] EWCA Crim 820

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 820

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Date Thursday 5 June 2025

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS

MRS JUSTICE McGOWAN

HIS HONOUR JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS

(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

Reference by the Attorney General under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Between

REXCrown

Between

JEFFREY LEGG

(The 1992 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act applies)

_________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

________

MR D BISHOP appeared for Solicitor General

MS S HIRST appeared for Offender

_________

JUDGMENT

(Approved)

[1]This is an application by His Majesty’s Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence which the Solicitor General considers to be unduly lenient.

[2]The respondent, Jeffrey Legg, is now aged 58, having been born in October 1966. At the time of the offending he was aged between 46 and 49 years old. On 24 January 2025 he was convicted of the offence of assault of a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, following a trial. The victim, who was aged between 8 and 10 years at the time of the offence, has the benefit of life-long anonymity pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2002.

[3]It is submitted by Mr Bishop, on behalf of the Attorney General, that first the judge was wrong to categorise the offence as 3A within the guideline. It is submitted it should have been 2A because the victim had suffered severe psychological harm. Secondly, if the judge was right that it was category 3A there should have been a significant upward adjustment from the starting point to reflect the ongoing psychological harm suffered by the victim. Thirdly, the judge gave undue weight to the mitigating factor of previous good character in the context of a serious sexual offence committed against a child.

[4]It is submitted on behalf of Mr Legg that first, the judge was right to categorise this as a category 3A offence because there was significant but not severe psychological harm and the judge had seen the victim give evidence at trial. Secondly, the judge did make an upward adjustment. Thirdly, the judge had rightly made a discount for mitigation which included delays in the trial which had impacted both the victim and Mr Legg; the impact of Mr Legg’s imprisonment after conviction which had caused a loss of employment, meaning that his wife had to cash in her pension; Mr Legg’s inability to attend his daughter’s wedding because of his imprisonment; and his positive progress in prison, as exemplified by a very recent prison report.

[5]We grant leave for the Reference, because the issue of whether there was severe psychological harm is arguable. The Facts

[6]In order to protect the victim’s identity the summary of the facts will necessarily be at a high level of generality. The judge found that Mr Legg had groomed the victim on visits to his house. On one occasion, when aged between 8 and 10 years old and, after a bath, when she was wearing night clothes (being a rainbow vest and bottoms) the victim was sitting on Mr Legg’s lap as he watched football. He inserted either his finger or the side of his hands between the flaps of her labia. The victim told him not to do that, and said that it was only her mother who was allowed to touch her there. Mr Legg laughed when she said that so she laughed in response.

[7]The victim made a near contemporaneous complaint about the incident to her friend, who gave evidence at trial.

[8]In September 2020, when the victim was aged some 15 years (so some 5 to 7 years later) she made disclosures to the school safeguarding officer and subsequently to her mother about the offending. It appears the victim had seen photographs of Mr Legg and her which had triggered her recollection of the event.

[9]On 5 November 2020, so after the disclosures had been made, the victim wrote a letter to Mr Legg which in the event she did not send but the contents were adduced at trial. In the letter the victim blamed herself for what had happened, she wrote:

“I think so much about the couple of minutes of pleasure you got out of me and was it really worth ruining my whole happiness and making me feel so mentally and physically dead. I was that little and young and you used me. Is there any point even trying to picture life without pain?”

The victim continued:

“I blame myself more and more every hour because no one sees or feels the way I do in my head. The constant flashbacks of you, the guilt, the pain.”

[10]Later, in November 2020, an ABE interview was recorded. In December 2020, Mr Legg attended the police station at Middle Engine Lane for a voluntary interview under caution, where he denied the offending. In December 2021, so just about a year after the interview, Mr Legg was charged with the offence of assault of a child under 13 by penetration. On 6 January 2022 he made his first appearance at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court and his case was sent to the Crown Court for trial and he was remanded on unconditional bail. In February 2022 he pleaded not guilty to the offence. In May 2022, the victim was cross-examined pursuant to section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

[11]The trial was scheduled for September 2022 but was adjourned because of the Bar strike action. In February 2023, the trial started but the jury was discharged because inadmissible evidence was adduced. Trial listings were vacated in October 2023, February 2024 and August 2024, due to the illness of defence counsel. The trial commenced on 20 January 2025 and Mr Legg was convicted, as already indicated on 24 January 2025. That was relevant to the issue of mitigation of delay. The Sentencing

[12]There was a victim personal statement from the victim dated 4 February 2025. It was described by

the judge as a powerful statement and included the following:

“Each day I realise more and more that my body will never truly feel like my own, that is because you took advantage of me... You have lived your life, holiday by holiday, rescheduled trial after rescheduled trial, and I have spent years wondering if one day I wouldn’t have to relive what happens when the night terrors take over, if one day that I won’t need support with everything that I do…”

The statement included:

“I won’t need to be on the highest dose of antidepressants after four years of swallowing those pills. Why does it come to me to have to pay for trauma therapy so that you don’t have control over my mind? I had all these setbacks so that you can continue to live your life in utter denial. Why did you do this? Why did you need to ruin my childhood? For a long time I had such a fear of men. Men in general, at work, in shops, a fear that they might take advantage of me the way you did.”

[13]Mr Legg was aged between 46 and 49 at the time of the offending. He had no previous convictions. He continued to deny the offending in the pre-sentence report which noted his strong employment history. A recommendation for a 24-month community order was made which was, for very good reason, not advanced by counsel for Mr Legg at the sentencing hearing. Character references were submitted which referred to his honest and trustworthy nature.

[14]When sentencing,

the judge referred to the issue about whether there was severe psychological harm and said:

“In the dropdown box under category 2 it says this: ‘The assessment of psychological harm experienced by a victim is a matter for the sentencing court.’ I have come to the view that significant though this is, this harm, it falls short of the severe psychological harm that is anticipated by the guidelines and it is important to make clear that the absence of my finding does not imply in any way that [the victim’s] suffering and harm is minor or trivial, quite the contrary, but these guidelines build into a basic level of psychological harm which is inherent in the offence, and in her case it is enhanced, and so I am going to go up in the sentencing range, with a 6 year starting point, 4 to 9.”

The judge continued:

“This is a 3A case, in my judgment. There was abuse of trust, there was grooming. You allowed her to wash you in the bath and you washed her in the bath, gaining her trust, no doubt making her feel comfortable enough to sit on your lap on the occasion when you assaulted her. So because of the grooming and the abuse of trust, and my finding on harm this is a 3A case, but enhanced because of the particular effect it has had on [the victim] that falls short of severe psychological harm.”

[15]The judge went on to consider mitigation. As well as the contents of the pre-sentence report, there was the work record, the character references and the judge also considered there had been delays to the trial which were due to factors outside Mr Legg’s control and so were taken into account as an additional mitigating factor. The judge took into account the impact on Mr Legg’s family, and progress made in prison. The judge adopted a 6-year starting point, adjusted upwards to 7 years because of the enhanced level of harm, then reduced to 6 years to reflect the strong personal mitigation. An additional 1-year licence period was imposed because Mr Legg was of particular concern within the meaning of the statute. Therefore the overall sentence was 6 years’ imprisonment with a 1-year extended licence.

[16]Since sentencing, a prison report has been produced which was referred to this morning by Ms Hirst. That shows that the respondent Mr Legg has made progress in prison. He has conducted himself very well and is respectful and engaging with the regime. It also shows that he continues to deny the offence. The Guidelines

[17]There is an offence-specific guideline for the offence of assault of a child under 13 by penetration. The issue in this Reference relates to harm. There are three categories under the guideline. Harm category 1 is where the extreme nature of one or more category 2 factors or the extreme impact caused by a combination of category 2 factors may elevate to category 1. So far as is material category 2 includes where there is severe psychological or physical harm. Harm category 3 is where factors in categories 1 and 2 are not present.

[18]The guideline provides a drop-down box which the judge referred to, which expands on the meaning “severe psychological or physical harm” and provides that the sentence levels in this guideline take into account a basic level of psychological harm which is inherent in the nature of the offence. The assessment of psychological harm experienced by the victim beyond this is for the sentencer, and that while the court may be assisted by expert evidence such evidence is not necessary for a finding of psychological harm including severe psychological harm. A sentencer may assess that such harm is suffered on the basis of evidence from the victim including evidence contained in a victim personal statement or on the judge’s observation of the victim whilst giving evidence. It is important to be clear that the absence of such a finding does not imply the psychological harm suffered by the victim is minor or trivial.

[19]So far as category A factors are concerned, that included grooming behaviour used against the victim and abuse of trust. Category 2A has a starting point of 11 years with a range of 7 to 15 years. Category 3A has a starting point of 6 years with a range of 4 to 9 years. The guideline provides that in a case of particular gravity reflected by multiple features of culpability or harm in step 1 could merit upward adjustments. The guideline also provides that good character, exemplary conduct is different from having no previous convictions. The more serious the offence the less weight which should normally be attributed to this factor. Where previous good character or exemplary conduct has been used to facilitate the offence, this mitigation should not normally be allowed and such conduct may constitute an aggravating factor. In the context of this offence, previous good character or exemplary conduct should not normally be given any significant weight or will not normally justify a reduction in what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence. The Reference

[20]We turn therefore to the first issue of whether there was severe psychological harm as opposed to significant psychological harm. The judge, who saw the victim give evidence in her ABE recorded interview and her section 28 cross-examination, was the person best placed to assess whether there was severe psychological harm. The finding that the judge made was that there was significant but not severe psychological harm and there was harm which was enhanced. A finding of fact which is made by a trial judge who has seen the relevant witness should not be interfered with unless it is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with an uncontroverted fact or otherwise irrational. There is in this case the letter written at about the same time as the ABE interview. There was the uncontroverted fact of 4 years of antidepressant-taking and it seems likely that use started after the disclosure that was made to the school officers. The judge had taken all those matters into account and had considered that this was significant but not severe psychological harm. We are not in a position to say that that finding of fact made by the judge who had heard the trial was wrong.

[21]The second issue is whether or not the judge should have gone up further than he did. The judge said that because of the enhanced harm he went up by 1 year. That was, in our judgment, a permissible increase in the circumstances, although it is right to record that many judges would have gone up more.

[22]The final issue is whether the judge gave too much a discount for mitigation. As is apparent, the issue of good character which Mr Legg had, and positive good character, is not a factor that under the guidelines normally justifies a substantial reduction or reduction in what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence, but there were other features of mitigation. There was the delay in the proceedings, which had affected both the victim and Mr Legg. There was the impact on Mr Legg’s family, in the sense, that because he lost his employment, his wife had had to cash in a pension to pay for the mortgage. There is the fact, arising from his imprisonment, that he was unable to attend his daughter’s wedding. In our judgment, many judges might not have considered that the mitigation matched the enhanced harm but we are unable in all to say that it was anything other than lenient. We are not able to say that the reduction for mitigation made this sentence unduly lenient.

[23]In all those circumstances, therefore, having granted leave for the Reference, we will dismiss it. None of this is to detract from the harm that the victim has suffered or undermine the seriousness of Mr Legg’s offending. He, for his own selfish reasons, took advantage of the victim and treated her as a sexual object when she was a young child. He remains in a state of complete denial, both about the offending and the harm he has caused, even though the victim had reported the offending to a friend near the time of the occurrence. No sentence, however short or however long, can ever give back Mr Legg’s theft of the victim’s innocence. 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