R v Stuart Latham [2026] EWCA Crim 269

[2026] EWCA Crim 269Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 20 February 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR ANDREW BAKERHER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER s.36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
Between
REXApplicantSTUART LATHAMRespondent
Mr P Jarvis KC appeared for Attorney GeneralMr N Clarke appeared for Offender
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. 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.
Approved Judgment
[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. 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. For the avoidance of any doubt, we do not waive or lift the prohibition and to ensure, so far as we can, that no one is identified, we shall refer to the victims of this offending as "V1", "V2, "V3" or whatever. In doing that we are doing it solely to protect their identities and we never forget that there is a real person with a real name and a real life behind every "V". Introduction[2]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer a sentence which she regards as unduly lenient. The aggregate sentence was an extended sentence of 22 years pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of 14 years and an extended licence period of 8 years. The sentence was imposed on the offender on 19 September 2025 by HHJ Philip Parry, sitting in the Crown Court at Preston, after the offender had pleaded guilty on various different occasions, to a very large number of serious sexual offences against multiple victims, all of whom were young girls. The offending spanned the period from May 2023 to April 2024, with a spree of online offending in March and April 2024. The offences were charged under three indictments to which we shall refer as case 4124, case 8324 and case 6624.[3]The sentences imposed for the individual offences were as follows: i) Under case 4124, on count 1, which was an offence of rape of a child under 13, on his plea of guilty (as all these offences were after a plea of guilty) the sentence was 14 years' imprisonment with an extension period of 8 years. ii) On count 4, which was an offence of possession of extreme pornographic image, there was no separate penalty. iii) On count 5, which was an offence of making indecent photographs of a child coming within category A, there was a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment. All sentences hereafter were ordered to be served concurrently. iv) On count 6, which was an offence of making indecent photographs of a child (falling within category B), the sentence was 3 months' imprisonment. v) On count 7, which was another offence of making indecent photographs of a child (this time contrary to category C), the sentence was 1 month's imprisonment. vi) On count 8, which was an offence of sexual activity with a child, the sentence was 3 years' imprisonment.[4]Turning to case 8324: i) On count 1, which was an offence of sexual activity with a child, the sentence was 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment. Similarly on counts 3, 4 and 6, which were also offences of sexual activity with a child, on each of those counts the sentence was 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment.[5]Turning to count 6624: i) Count 1 was an offence of blackmail, in respect of which the sentence was 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. ii) Count 3 was an offence of causing a child to watch a sexual act, in respect of which the sentence was 12 months' imprisonment. iii) Count 4 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. iv) Count 5 was another offence of blackmail, in respect of which the sentence was 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. v) Count 7 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, the sentence for which was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. vi) Count 8 was another offence of blackmail, in respect of which the sentence was 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. vii) Count 9 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. viii) Counts 12 and 14 were further offences of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of each of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. ix) Count 16 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. x) Count 17 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xi) Count 19 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xii) Count 21 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xiii) Count 23 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xiv) Count 24 was another offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xv) Count 25 was another offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xvi) Count 26 was another offence of blackmail, in respect of which the sentence was 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. xvii) Count 28 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xviii) Count 31 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xix) Counts 32 and 35 were further offences of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of each of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xx) Count 37 was another offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xxi) Counts 38 and 39 were further offences of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of each of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xxii) Count 42 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xxiii) Count 44 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xxiv) Count 45 was a further offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity in respect of which, again, the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xxv) Count 47 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xxvi) Count 48 was an offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. xxvii) Count 49 was another offence of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, in respect of which the sentence was 12 months' imprisonment. xxviii) Count 51 was an offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xxix) Count 52 was a further offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xxx) Count 53 was an offence of distributing or showing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of a child, in respect of which the sentence was 3 months' imprisonment. xxxi) Counts 54, 55 and 56 were further offences of distributing or showing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of a child. In respect of count 54 the sentence was 18 months' imprisonment; in respect of count 55 the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment and in respect of count 56 the sentence was 3 months' imprisonment. xxxii) Count 57 was an offence of making indecent photographs of a child, in respect of which the sentence was 9 months' imprisonment. xxxiii) Count 58 was a further offence of making indecent photographs of a child, in respect of which the sentence was 3 months' imprisonment. xxxiv) Finally, count 59 was another offence of making indecent photographs of a child, in respect of which the sentence was 1 month imprisonment. Those individual sentences were aggregated as we have said into an extended sentence of 22 years with a custodial element of 14 years' imprisonment and a licence extension of 8 years. The factual background[6]It is necessary to deal with the facts to explain the nature and extent of the offender's offending. We deal first with case 4124. The victims were V1 and V2. V1 was born in September 2009, V2 was born in March 2010. The offences came to the police's attention as a result of a report by CAMHS (Child and Adult Mental Health Services). V1 had been open to CAMHS since 2022 due to difficulties at school and self-harm issues. It was during these earlier interactions with the service that V1 disclosed that she was in a sexual relationship with someone who she believed to be a 15-year-old boy.[7]V1 said that the offender was quite controlling, and that she was not sure she should be with him. Given her concerns an employee at CAMHS explained to V1 that she was going to make a referral, to which V1 agreed. Of particular concern to the employee was V1’s daily self-harming and suicidal thoughts. She also reported matters to the police.[8]The employee also reported matters to the teaching staff at V1’s school where the appointment was taking place. A statement from another witness outlines that the school had been aware since October 2022 that V1 had been in a relationship with an older individual who was believed to be 15 and that they were sexually active.[9]When spoken to by her teachers about this relationship V1 suggested that the offender also had videos and images of her nude and having sex. V1 explained that when he wanted to do something sexual that she did not want to do, he would get mad at her, so she had to do it.[10]V1 told the teachers that her friend V2 had also been involved with the offender. V2 explained to her teachers that the offender had penetrated her vagina with his fingers when she had been at V1’s house about a year before. She too reported that he had images of her. Both girls were therefore spoken to by the police.[11]Following that report both girls were video interviewed. V1 was interviewed on 22 October 2023. She outlined her background and how she has a number of siblings and has lived at different times with various relations including her mum, her dad and her mum’s partner.[12]V1 described how she has had difficulties at school and had self-harmed and tried to take her own life. She said she had been friends with V2 but because of these allegations they were no longer friends.[13]V1 explained that she had met the offender on the dating app "Swiper". She said they met up for sex at her dad’s house the following day. The offender had turned up at the address. Upon going into the house, they went straight to the bedroom and had sex. V1 said the offender left within minutes of that ending. At the time of this first meeting she was just 12 years old, although she had told him she was 14 because she had understood that he was 15 (count 1).[14]V1 said they then became boyfriend and girlfriend as she thought. She went on to say that after about a month when they were messaging one another, she told the offender that she was 13. His response was to say, "You’re 12 aren’t you?" and she confirmed that this was the case. In the following weeks he bought her a number of sex toys and outfits.[15]Around the same time V1 said her dad became aware of the relationship as his partner had accessed V1’s Snapchat account. As a result, her dad had then met the offender. At a different point her mum had also met him. The offender and V1 would then spend time at both addresses. When her mum found out she was sexually active she took her to the sexual health clinic and V1 was prescribed the Pill and provided with condoms.[16]At this time, V1 thought the offender was 15 and approaching his 16th birthday for which she made him a card. She went on to describe difficulties in the relationship and it being on and off again for some time. They did however resume their sexual relationship.[17]It was only when V1 spoke to CAMHS and her teachers that she became aware that the offender was over 18. Despite this knowledge it seems that V1 continued contacting him until the day before her ABE interview.[18]During that contact the offender expressed his wish that V1 continue to visit him and write letters should he go to prison and that he would wait for her to turn 16 so that they could get back together.[19]V1 also spoke in that interview about an arrangement with the offender and V2 to have a threesome but halfway through V2 had changed her mind. The defendant had however digitally penetrated V2 by that stage (count 8).[20]V2 was interviewed by the police on 8 January 2024. During the interview she confirmed that the offender had digitally penetrated her on one occasion whilst at V1’s house.[21]V1's mother’s previous partner told the police he was aware that V1 was in a relationship with the offender. He said he had met the offender a number of times. In the summer of 2022, when V1 was living with him, it became apparent that this relationship was a sexual one. He was told by the offender in October 2022 that he (the offender) was 15 and that his birthday was in May. Whilst not condoning a sexual relationship between the two the previous partner took the view that his main concern was the safety of V1. He was aware that she had been issued with contraception.[22]V1’s mother was also spoken to by the police. She outlined how when V1 was 12, she told her that she was in a relationship with the offender who she was told was 15. V1’s mother was unaware that the relationship was sexual initially but she was told by V1’s sister that this was the case. Whilst she expressed her concerns to V1 about the relationship, V1 was insistent that she would continue to see the offender. So, it was decided that they would seek contraception advice and speak to the offender. During that discussion the offender was told by V1’s mother that V1 was 12 years old.[23]As a result of these disclosures the offender was arrested and interviewed on 23 December 2023. He denied that he had committed offences in respect of V1 and V2. He accepted that there had been sexual contact but he said that had only occurred because he thought V1 was 18. However, the offender agreed that he had been told numerous times that V1 was 12. In respect of V2, he denied that anything had ever happened with her. Following that interview the offender was released on bail with conditions which included non-contact with V1.[24]In April 2024, however, the police were contacted by the National Crime Agency with information concerning the offender. As a result of that information the offender was again arrested.[25]At the time of his second arrest the offender’s devices were seized and analysed. The result of that analysis revealed a number of images and videos of V1 date-stamped January and April 2024, as well as indecent photographs of other children and an extreme pornographic image that was charged as count 4.[26]In total on the offender’s devices there were 138 indecent photographs of children at category A, 167 at category B and 310 at category C. These offences were charged in counts 5, 6 and 7. Of those images, 321 were of V1 and 231 were of other children.[27]We turn now to case 8324. The police spoke to V1 again on 8 May 2024. She outlined how she had made contact with the offender in January 2024 on the Fortnite gaming platform. At that point, the offender was on bail and was aged 20.[28]From there they had moved to being in contact on Snapchat and then they had met in person in Blackburn. V1 had told her family she was going to stay with friends but she had met up with the offender. They had gone to an apartment together where they cooked and watched movies and had sex. This happened more than once.[29]When asked about the visits to Blackburn, V1 outlined that she would meet the offender at the train station and they would walk to an apartment that had been selected. On each occasion they had sexual intercourse. On another occasion the same happened when she visited the offender at his home address when his family were not present. Following this there was another visit to an apartment in Blackburn.[30]These episodes of sexual intercourse between the offender and V1 in the early part of 2024, when V1 was 14 years old, were charged as counts 1, 3, 4 and 6. The offender was interviewed in respect of these allegations in June 2024. He made "no comment" to all matters put to him.[31]We turn then to case 6624. In March 2024 the police received information from the National Crime Agency that a Snapchat user with a linked phone number ending 270 had accessed indecent images of children. Further research revealed that the Snapchat account was linked to an address which included the home address of the offender. At the time of this report the offender was on bail in respect of the original indictment matters concerning V1 and V2.[32]As a result of the information received police officers attended the offender's home address on 23 April 2024. The offender was in his bedroom and was arrested. He was asked to provide his mobile phone but denied that he had one. A search of the room revealed a phone hidden at the back of the wardrobe. This device was also the subject of interrogation and digital analysis.[33]The offender was interviewed following his arrest and denied accessing or possessing indecent images of children. He also denied that he spoke to children on social media and/or that he asked for sexual images of children.[34]The forensic analysis of the phone seized at the time of his arrest led to the conclusion that the phone contained material relating to the blackmail of children, sexual communications with children and a large volume of child sexual abuse material. A large volume of that material related to V1, who was identified from the material by the police. This included a recording of the offender having sex with V1 whilst he was on bail for the original offences.[35]As an overview, the analysis of the phone seized by the police revealed that the offender had been in contact with female children across the UK and abroad on the Snapchat platform. He had used his phone to record these conversations, some of which were almost an hour long. Many of the chats were very complex, revealing that the offender would contact multiple children at one time and move between the children every few minutes. He would send messages or an advertisement out saying that he would pay £200 or gift cards if the girls could help him out by sending photographs or videos of nudes. He did this through his Snapchat account that showed him posing as "Josh", sometimes using a photograph of a male child aged approximately 14 or 15 years old.[36]As a result of the investigation a number of children were identified. The offender pleaded guilty to counts concerning 37 victims in total, 23 of whom are the subject of the counts that do not include the distribution or making of indecent images.[37]Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 concern V3 who was aged 12, together with V4, who was also aged 12. They can be seen together on two recordings made by the offender. They responded to the offender’s advertisement suggesting payment for the sending of photographs and videos. The images sent by the girls clearly show young children. They asked the offender what he looked like and he sent them an image from the internet of a 14/15-year-old male. The offender then gave the girls instructions to perform sex acts on one another. He asked them to take their tops off and an image was sent of them both exposing their developing breasts.[38]Another image was requested of them naked and was sent showing V3 showing her breasts and V4 showing her vagina. The offender then told V3 to lick her friend’s vagina, but she refused. He then asked them to do a short video and watch whilst he ejaculated with them having their breasts exposed. He can be seen on the recording masturbating whilst the children are seen naked on top of one another.[39]During the chat with the two girls the offender entered into another conversation with V5, who was aged 13. During the recording with V3 and V4, V5 responded to the offender’s advertisement. The offender requested that she send a nude picture of herself. V5 responded with an image of her stood naked with her back and bottom exposed. He then asked for images of her breasts. During a further conversation with V3 and V4 later on the evening of 12 April 2024 the offender demanded that they send exactly what he wanted, or he would leak the images he had. V3 then asked him to delete the images to which the offender responded that he would delete them after they had done what he asked and if they delayed, the images would be sent to people. Again, he demanded that they should show their breasts.[40]V3 did send an image of her exposed breast. The offender then demanded an image of both breasts and told them to tell him their real ages and that if they were not honest, he would post the images. V3 then blocked him.[41]V6, aged 13, also contacted the offender. Her interaction with him took place on 5 April 2024. V6 responded to the offender’s advertisement and sent him an image of a person in pyjama bottoms with breasts exposed. This was not a live image, and the offender then requested an image that would confirm it was her. She then sent an image of two children in a mirror aged approximately 13-15. In response the offender then offered to pay for more photographs and tried to persuade her to send an image of her breasts. She sent a heavily edited image of her bottom cheeks. The offender saved those images. When requested by V6 to delete them, he threatened to leak the images and demanded further images of her breasts. V6 sent the image, but the offender made further demands of images of her bottom whilst on her knees or he would leak the images. V6 sent such an image but then there was yet another demand for images of her vagina. Having sent this with edits the offender demanded an unedited version and then an image of her face and breasts or he would leak the images he had. V6 then blocked him.[42]V7 was also aged 13. V7 initially sent the offender an image of her face. He responded by asking her to send whatever she has saved. V7 then sent two images, one of her breasts partially covered by her bra and a moving image of her with her finger inserted in her vagina. This was recorded by the offender.[43]V8 was also aged 13. V8 sent the offender an image of her face covered with a filter. There was then a conversation between the two about how she would be paid for sending an image. She asked if she could just send an image of her top half, to which the offender responded that he is looking for more than that. She then sent him an image of her breasts and her exposed vagina.[44]V9 was aged 11. V9 sent an image to the offender of her exposed breasts. He then asked her to send a photograph of her bottom. V9 then left the chat.[45]V10 was aged 12. She responded to the offender’s advertisement asking what he needed help with. He responded by telling her that he would pay her for whatever images he asked for. V10 then sent him 19 images in which she was clothed in only her bra. The offender responded by asking for images of her nude, but she did not respond further.[46]V11 was aged 12 and V12 was aged 13. V11 responded to the offender’s advertisement with an image of two girls aged around 13 years old which was not indecent. The offender responded by asking if the girls are "Down to do it", to which V11 agreed that they were. He then offered to pay the girls £300 each for an image of them with their tops exposed. V11 and V12 then sent an image in their bras. The offender’s response was to ask for an image with their bras off. V11 sent an image of her exposed breasts and when this was not enough for the offender an image of her bottom as well. The offender’s response was "godamn, send an ass pic live without panties… or show pussy first." V11 said she was too scared, and the chat ended.[47]V13 was 12 years old and is autistic and particularly vulnerable. There are three recordings that concern V13. In the first conversation V13 sent the offender an image of herself with a filter. The offender responded by asking her to send something that would get him "hard". In response V13 sent an image of her exposed vagina. When he then asked for images of her breasts V13 told him she was scared. She was crying and said she may self-harm.[48]The second recording of a chat with V13 also concerns V14, who is aged 12 and V15 who is also aged 12. In this recording the offender chatted with V14 who asked him if he wanted dirty pictures. He replied that he wanted "nudes" but that he would not save them. V14 responded saying she needed the money and sent him an image of her breasts wearing a bra. He asked her to send an image without the bra, which she did.[49]The third conversation with V13 also included the offender’s chat with V15 who was aged 12. During this recording V15 sent the offender a video of her face. He told her that she was "sexy as fuck" and to take her top off. He said he was 14 years old and she told him she was 12. He asked her to send images as he is "horny" and that would help.[50]V16 was aged 11. Again, the offender chatted with V16 about the advertisement and payment for images. V16 then sent him an image of her face. She appeared to be 11-13 years old. The offender then asked her age, explaining to her that he is under 18 and as long as she is, it is fine. V16 told him she was 15. The offender then asked for images again and V16 sent him an image of a child sat on a toilet with her vagina exposed. The offender responded asking if this was the school toilets and he told her she was "as sexy AF". He went on to ask that she go to the bathroom and help him out as he was going to climax. She refused, to which he responded, "cool well I guess I’ll leak these to your friends and family or u want me to delete." V16 told him to delete them and that she will phone the police and that her dad is watching. The offender’s response was that he did not care and that they will be leaked before then to 30,000 people in the server. He then can be seen to delete his messages threatening to leak the images.[51]An associated chat concerned V16’s sister V17, and V18, who was aged 12. The recording opened with an image of V18 lying on a bed in a vest and knickers. The offender responded with "nice ass, what else have you got?" He then entered into a chat with V17 who told him she is V16’s sister. She called him a "pedo" and asked why he was sharing pictures of her sister who was 11 and not 15. She called him a nonce. The offender said it was V16’s fault for saying she was 15 and he told V17 to stop messaging him as he is underage. He then returned to V18 and told her to show him her "tits right now". V18 then sent an image of her breasts.[52]V19 was aged 12. She sent an image to the offender of herself with her top pulled down exposing one of her breasts. The chat then showed the offender threatening her that he will leak images if she did not send him what he wanted, to which she responded her life was miserable enough.[53]V20 was aged 15. The chat shows the offender having a conversation with V20 who then sent him an image of her head and shoulders wearing her school uniform. She appeared to be 13-15. She asked the offender what videos he wanted, and he responded that he wanted nudes. V20 was unsure about this. The conversation moved on to payment with the offender seeking to persuade her by saying he would not save anything. He asked for an image of her breasts for which he would pay her £100. V20 then sent two images, one of her on all fours facing the camera in underwear and another where the focus is on her vagina which is covered by her knickers.[54]The next chat recorded concerned V21, who is aged 12, V22, who is aged 13, and V23, who is aged 12, amongst other children.[55]Concerning V21, the offender entered into a chat with her in which she told him she was 12. She sent him an image of herself in a school tie with her face filtered out. His response was to ask her to send him something to get him "hard". V21 then directed him to another account which he then added. She then asked him what he wanted, and he said "show me your tits". She then sent an image in her bra and he told her he is getting "hard". She then sent him an image of her fingers inserted into her vagina. She told the offender she was 12 and he told her he was 14. He then said that he wished he could stick his cock inside her. There was a general discussion about meeting up. The offender then sent her an image of his penis. He went on to request an image of her bent over and indicated he was going to climax soon. A further request for an image of her breasts was made by the offender. Later on V21 sent an image of herself in leggings in response to the offender’s request for an image in her school uniform. He then asked her to spread her ass so that he could imagine penetrating her with his penis. V21 then sent an image of herself bending over, exposing her vagina and an image of her penetrating her vagina with her fingers. The two then tried to call one another and V21’s naked breasts can be seen on the screen while the offender is seen masturbating. The offender then asked V21 to go on camera showing her entire body naked. He said that he would send a video for her showing him climaxing.[56]Whilst talking to V21 the offender entered into a conversation with V22. She told him she was 14 and he said he was 15. He then sent her his usual advertisement. V22 indicated that she was not interested. She then sent him an image of another child in leggings and a cropped top. He requested more "risky" pictures to get him "hard", so she sent him an image of herself fully clothed. The offender then asked her to meet him so that he could have sex with her. He was unable to persuade her to send further images.[57]In the midst of these conversations V23 sent the offender an image of her face in which she appeared to be around 13. Again, the offender responded with a request for images to get him hard. When asked by V23, "like what?", he responded with "how about your tits?". V23 then sent a voice note which was probably not complimentary as the offender then blocked her.[58]Returning to V21, the following day there was a conversation between the two in which the offender took a more threatening tone in his requests for images. In response V21 sent him images of adult females by a pool.[59]The original devices seized from the offender also revealed that other children had sent indecent images to him. The children in those images were more difficult to identify as the offender had undertaken a bulk deletion of data shortly before his arrest. There were therefore very few accessible recordings located on the device. Whilst there were many indecent images of children on those devices, identifying them without the associated data was difficult. It was clear that the offender had used a similar advertisement to target girls.[60]Despite the challenges, indecent images of 16 other children were located together with a sexual communication with one of them.[61]V24, aged 13, was one such individual. There was a recording of a chat with V24 that lasted in excess of 9 minutes. During that recording the offender asked V24 if she was ready. He then masturbated whilst V24 inserted her fingers into her vagina. The offender then asked her to show her face and body with her legs spread so that he could climax. He then asked her to show her breasts but she refused. He then requested an image of her sucking her fingers and a video of her bending over with her bottom to the camera. V24 then complied. A discussion concerning payment then took place.[62]V25, aged 14, was also identified. She sent the offender images with her face visible and her t-shirt pulled up to expose her breasts. A further image showed her lowering her knickers to expose her vagina as she looked into the camera. A Snapchat conversation with V25 concerned her asking the offender to delete them, which was presumably a reference to the images. The offender responded to say that he will delete them once they are done and he asked if she was naked.[63]The final victim is V26. A conversation between her and the offender included an image she sent to the offender of her breasts covered with a bra. In addition, on the offender’s device the police found indecent photographs of another 48 unidentified children. Moreover, the offender had distributed in total four Category C indecent photographs of children, two category B indecent photographs and one category A indecent photograph. Further, the offender made 2070 Category C images, 778 Category B images and 1098 Category A images. Within this collection many are first generation images of identifiable individuals with a high volume of the images being moving images. The date range of the images is 1 April 2023 to 23 April 2024.

The victims

[64]The judge had 25 victim impact statements including statements from C1 and C2 and other child victims and statements from parents of some of the child victims. We have read them all. All express a mixture of anger and distress at what the offender had done to them, their children and their families. V1 had been bubbly and outgoing before she met the offender. She started to self-harm during her relationship with him (if that is not an abuse of the word "relationship") and her mental health had suffered considerably as a result of what the offender did to her. V2 spoke of feeling unclean and disgusted with herself, blaming herself for what had happened. She became isolated both from her parents and her friends. Her schoolwork suffered from lack of ability to concentrate. She lost her spark and sense of humour. All her friends knew that something was up. She spoke of having the child in her taken away, leaving her with a scar that will always be with her.[65]The victim impact statements give an overwhelmingly powerful sense of the havoc wreaked by the offender not just on the immediate victims of his offending but on many others as well. In the face of that havoc it is plain that no sentence is likely to be regarded as sufficient by those who lives have been affected in this way. We bear that in mind at all times.

The offender

[66]The offender was born on 19 September 2003, he is therefore 22 now. At the time of the offending he was aged between 19 and 20. Before the offences with which we are concerned he had no previous convictions.[67]The judge had the benefit of pre-sentence reports. The first pre-sentence report was prepared in respect of the offender was to cover the offences charged in the first two indictments and an addendum was obtained after the offender pleaded guilty to 39 counts in the third case.[68]The author of the original pre-sentence report noted that the offender took little responsibility for what he had down to V1 and V2. He accepted that he had lied to the victims about his age, but he denied grooming either of them. He said he fell in love with V1. He claimed that V1 was the one driving their relationship. The author was satisfied that the offender had groomed both victims and that he had demonstrated a considerable degree of predatory and manipulative behaviour. The author also noted that the offender's remorse was very limited as he persistently blamed the victims and sought to minimise his own behaviour.[69]The author assessed the offender as posing a high risk of serious harm to children. The offender tried to portray himself to the author as being immature and naive, but the author informed a different view that the offender was devious and predatory.[70]In an addendum report the author stated that the offending in the third indictment only reinforced his opinions about the offender. However, during the course of the later interview the offender disclosed that he too had been the subject of similar online abuse when younger.[71]Over the course of a number of interviews the offender continued to deny the offences. He said that he had been acting out consensual role play with the victims. His risk assessment remained the same, albeit with additional concern around the offender's use of social media to groom and abuse young children.

The prosecution’s case at the sentencing hearing

[72]The prosecution submitted that the rape of V1 when she was aged under 13 was harm category 2 (severe psychological harm) and culpability A (grooming behaviour and sexual images of V1 recorded). That would give a starting point of 13 years, with a category range of 11 to 17 years' custody. If severe psychological harm was not present, the prosecution submitted that it was a case falling within category A3, with a starting point of 10 years and a category range from 8 to 13 years.[73]Starting points and category ranges were suggested for each of the other categories of the cases. In all cases the relevant starting points and category ranges were those applicable to an adult offender.

The sentence imposed by the judge

[74]As we have said, the offender pleaded guilty to all of these offences on different occasions. The judge took the different timings of his pleas into account when affording the offender a reduction of either 20 or 25 per cent for each offence. The Solicitor General does not criticise the reductions for plea made by the judge. We shall therefore simply identify the reduction that was made where it is necessary to do so. Equally, as we shall specify in more detail later, the judge made significant reductions to the sentences that he would otherwise have imposed on account of the offender's personal mitigation. The Solicitor General's Reference criticises the reductions made in respect of some of these offences but does not go far as to assert that they were outside the range of what was permissible.[75]In oral submissions before us today Mr Jarvis KC, appearing for the Solicitor General, emphasised that what this case is really concerned about is not so much the results on individual counts but the overall totality of the offender's offending. We agree.[76]The judge's sentencing remarks were conspicuously well organised, clear and transparent. He started by summarising the stages of the proceedings at which the offender had pleaded guilty and the appropriate percentage reductions that would be applied to the various offences as follows. First, case 4124:(a) counts 1 and 8 (rape and digital penetration) 20 per cent;(b) counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 (possession of extreme pornographic image making indecent photographs of children) 25 per cent. Second, case 8324: counts 1, 3, 4 and 6 (sexual activity with a child (V1)) 25 per cent. Case 6624, the discount was not identified at the outset but was later established to be 25 per cent.[77]The judge then outlined the facts, noting that by the time of offences under cases 8324 and 6624 the offender was on bail in respect of the case 4124 offences and that V1 was 14 while the offender was now 20. He then outlined the content of the victim impact statements, concluding with a degree of understatement that the offender had "left emotional wreckage in your wake as a result of the offending which [he] committed against multiple young girls".[78]The judge then turned to mitigation. In the light of the pre-sentence report and addendum pre-sentence report, he concluded that the offender committed the case 6624 offences because he knew he was already in trouble and just wanted additional sexual gratification before he was locked up as he knew that was coming. He then rejected a defence submission that the rape offence (count 1 on case 2124) should be regarded as falling within category 3B because of an absence of grooming. His view was that the offender's persistent conduct in masquerading as a 15 year odd when in fact he was 19 did not speak of immaturity but of deceit and manipulation. The judge then explained how he would proceed, saying:
"I intend to set out the sentences I consider would have been appropriate if I were dealing with each in isolation based on my assessment of where your offending falls within the offence specific guidelines, the aggravating and mitigating features and your credit. That way there will be transparency in the sentencing process before I then finally set out what type of sentence I impose and of what length, with totality well in my mind."
[79]Before embarking on that exercise, he addressed the offender's age as follows:
"I am aware that you are 22 today. You were 21 when you admitted these offences. You were 19 when you committed the offence at Count 1 on case 4124, 19 or 20 when you committed the offence at Count 8 on 4124, and 20 yrs old when you committed all other offences on all other cases. You were not a child at any point, but you were not much beyond 18. I am aware that simply reaching milestones such as your 18th or 21st birthdays does not make you a mature adult. Even at 22, I recognise that you are far from fully developed as an adult. Accordingly, I have reminded myself of the guidance given in the Guidelines for sentencing Children and Young Persons, generally and specifically for sexual offences. I have considered those guidelines in conjunction with the findings in the PSRs in relation to your level of maturity, your understanding of what you were doing, your levels of empathy and insight. Your overall sentence will be of a length greater than if you were a child under 18, but less than if you were a fully mature adult above the age of 25."
[80]The judge then set out on the long process that he had described. For each offence of group of offences he identified the category into which the offence fell: the starting point and range, any adjustment to the starting point upwards for aggravating features or downwards for mitigation. We shall not set out the specifics for all offences or groups of offences but some require specific mention. i) Count 1 of case 4124. The rape of V1 was category 3A because of the presence of grooming, with a starting point of 10 years and a category range of 8 to 13 years. The judge went up from the starting point of 10 years to 11 years on account of the disparity in ages and the offender's persistent lying. He then adjusted that notional sentence down to 7 years, a reduction of almost 37%, for mitigation, which he identified as having no previous convictions at that stage, his age and all his personal circumstances. With 20 per cent reduction for plea, he arrived at 5 years and 7 months. ii) Count 8 of case 4124 (penetrative sexual activity with V2) was category 1A with a starting point of 5 years and a category range of up to 10 years. The starting point was adjusted up to 6 years to reflect the fact that V1 was present when the offence was committed. His mitigation brought it down to 4 years after a trial - a reduction of 33 per cent. But with 20 per cent reduction for plea the judge arrived at 3 years 2 months. iii) Counts 1 and 3, 4 and 6 of case 8324, the offences of sexual activity with a child when the offender was 20 and V1 was 14, were category 1A, with a starting point of 5 years and a category range up to 10. The aggravating features were that the offences were committed while on bail and that he persuaded V1 to write a letter exonerating his earlier behaviour. That moved the starting point up to 6½ years. His mitigation was only his age and his personal circumstances which caused a downwards adjustment to 4 years and 4 months, a reduction of 33 per cent, to which the judge applied a 25 per cent reduction for plea reaching a sentence of 3 years 3 months on each count. iv) The offences under case 6624 were treated as category 1A because of the serious distress he caused and the deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims. v) Blackmail, falling within category A1 (of which there were four offences) would have a starting point of 6 years with a category range of up to 10 years. The offences were aggravated by being committed while on bail with an intent to obtain sexual gratification and with an intention to maximise distress of the girls. That moved the starting point up to 8 years which the judge adjusted down to 5 years after a trial, a reduction of 37.5 per cent to which the judge then applied 25 per cent credit for plea, bringing the sentence for each offence to 3 years' imprisonment.[81]Having meticulously followed this course for all the offences with which the offender fell to be sentenced the judge then turned to the question of dangerousness. Having reviewed the materials that were available to him, he concluded that the offender was a highly dangerous individual who is a predatory sex offender, with little to no empathy or remorse. The test for dangerousness was met and he made the necessary finding. The judge then concluded his sentencing remarks saying:
"What I now need to consider is (a) the appropriate custodial term and (b) the extension period, which is a period for which you will be subject to licence and which is of such a length as I consider necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm occasioned by the commission by you of further specified offences. So, of course, I turn first to the custodial term... I have already set out what each individual offence would merit. I intend to aggregate all of your offending onto the sentence on Count 1. This means that the sentence on count 1 will appear considerably higher than it would be if it was sentenced in isolation. It is important at this stage I consider with care the principle of totality to ensure I pass a sentence which is just and proportionate and which reflects your overall offending. I remind myself again, of your age at the time of the commission of these offences and your age today. The custodial element of your extended sentence which attaches to Count 1 is 14 years. The extension period is 8 years - this comprises the maximum extension permitted. It is, in my judgement well-justified in your case given the facts of this case, your persistence to continue to sexually offend even when on police bail and your lack of insight into the seriousness of your offending."

The Solicitor-General's submissions

[82]The Solicitor General accepts that sentencing of multiple sexual offending against children is never straightforward and that the hardest part is working out what the overall sentence should be applying the principle of totality. It is also accepted that the judge was correct to take count 1 on case 4124 as the lead offence and to pass a sentence on that count that reflected the totality of all the offending in this case across the three cases. The custodial element imposed on count 1 was 14 years. Assuming a reduction for 25 per cent for plea, that equates to a sentence of 18 years 8 months before application of the 25 per cent reduction.[83]The Solicitor General submits that the judge's categorisation of count 1 as being harm category 3 is "difficult to justify" but does not go so far as to submit that it is outside the range of categorisations that was properly open to him. Taking a starting point of 10 years, the Solicitor General questions the judge's reduction to 7 years on a standalone basis because the evidence of the pre-sentence report writer was that the offender was "not particularly immature".[84]Once again, the Solicitor General does not submit that reduction to 7 years was outside the range that was properly open to him. However, continuing in the same vein, the Solicitor General submits that even if the appropriate sentence on count 1 on a standalone bases was 7 years before reduction for plea, the offender fell to be sentenced "for a multitude of sexual offences, as well as blackmail committed against dozens of child victims, most of whom were encouraged by him to commit sexual acts on themselves for his own gratification."[85]The blackmail offences are submitted to be particularly troubling. On top of that, a numerical majority of the offences were committed while on bail. In conclusion, the Solicitor General submits that a notional sentence after trial of 18 years and 8 months' imprisonment fell some way short of what the sentence should have been, even making due allowance for the offender's relative youth.[86]In oral submissions that were all the more powerful for the fairness with which they were advanced, Mr Jarvis refined the Solicitor General's submission as follows. He submits that we are not simply dealing with a large number of offences. We are dealing with different offences against different people, at different times, which can be reduced to four different categories. First, the rape of V1 with the aggravating feature of the recording what happened. Second, the involvement of V2 was because she was at the offender's instigation recruited by V1, which is a seriously aggravating factor. Thirdly, the offending against V1 continued after the offender's original arrest and release on bail. Fourthly, then dozens of young victims were contacted online and in some instances blackmailed. So when addressing totality the individual offences were serious but the seriousness of offending is enhanced when viewed overall. Mr Jarvis submits that the judge had to have the different types of offences in mind. Had he done so, he should have imposed a longer sentence by a significant margin. Accordingly the sentence passed was unduly lenient.

Discussion and resolution

[87]We are not persuaded that any of the judge's categorisations of the offences was outside the range that was properly open to him. Nor did Mr Jarvis submit that they were. In each case, or group of cases the judge gave concise but apposite explanations for the categorisation he adopted, which we endorse as being within reasonable bounds for the reasons he gave. Equally, there being no significant challenge from the Solicitor General, we are not persuaded that the reductions for plea given by the judge were wrong. To the contrary, given the overall scale and scope of the offending with which he was dealing and the detailed chronology of the entering of the pleas, we consider that the judge could have adopted 25 per cent across the board. The Solicitor General's adopting of 25 per cent in relation to count 1, where the judge took 20 per cent, seems to us to be entirely reasonable.[88]We accept that there is more scope for questioning the judge's approach when it comes to the reductions he made for the offender's personal mitigation. The judge repeatedly referred to the offender's age and "all his personal circumstances." In relation to his age, the judge made clear that the offender's overall sentence "will be of a length greater than if you were a child under 18 but it will be less than if you were a fully mature adult above the age of 25". That is a conventional and justifiable approach which is not prevented by the judge's findings that the offender could be deceitful and manipulative.[89]Even if, as the pre-sentence report writer suggested and the Solicitor-General submits he was not "particularly immature", we are satisfied that it was open to the judge to make a reduction direction in the order of 15 to 20 per cent, or possibly even a touch more, on account of the offender's relative youth and immaturity. The judge's repeated references to "all the offender's personal circumstances" should have included the information in the addendum pre-sentence report that the offender had himself been subjected to online abuse at an earlier age. In our judgment, his personal circumstances entitled the judge to make a further reduction as an element of personal mitigation.[90]While we think that a reduction of 37 per cent for the offender's personal mitigation is at or beyond the outer limits of what was reasonable for the judge to apply in relation to individual counts, we consider that a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent overall to reflect his age and all his personal circumstances would be, and was, justifiable.[91]We agree that as a matter of simple arithmetic a sentence of 14 years after making a reduction of 25 per cent for plea indicates a notional sentence before that reduction of 18 years and 8 months. If one were then to assume that the notional sentence of 18 years and 8 months is reached after applying a reduction of 25 per cent for personal mitigation, the notional sentence before that reduction would have been just short of 25 years. Had the assumed reduction for personal mitigation been 30 per cent, the notional sentence before that reduction would have been between 26 and 27 years.[92]We accept that this arithmetic did not appear in the judge's sentencing remarks. However, given sentencing remarks that were technically highly proficient, it indicates that the aggregate sentence of 14 years for this offender was comparable to a sentence of 25 years or so being passed on a fully mature adult without the offender's personal mitigation and before credit for plea. We note in passing that the custodial element of the offence is not the only element of the sentence. Although the Solicitor General's written submissions did not appear to acknowledge the exceptional extension period of 8 years that the judge passed as an integral part of the sentence he imposed, Mr Jarvis recognised that it is the overall sentence which has to be considered.[93]We have stood back and reviewed the overall sentence from every angle that we can. Viewed in the light of the matters that we have set out above, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the judge was unduly lenient. While we have acknowledged that some of the reductions for personal mitigation appeared generous, overall we consider that this sentence, like the judge's sentencing remarks, was carefully crafted and correctly judged, giving full and proper weight to the principle of totality. On any view, an equivalent sentence in the region of 25 years after a trial of an older adult would rightly be regarded as a very heavy sentence, whether as a determinate sentence or as a custodial element of an extended sentence.[94]For these reasons we understand why the application to refer was made, and we give leave. However, having given leave, we are not persuaded that we should intervene to increase the sentence imposed by the judge.