R v Nilesh Goutam [2026] EWCA Crim 332

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 332Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 24 February 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE FRASERMRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBBHIS HONOUR JUDGE LEONARD KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
NILESH GOUTAM__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR T BEARDSWORTH appeared for Appellant._________JUDGMENTMRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB:
[1]On 18 December 2025 the appellant, Nilesh Goutam, then aged 35 and of previous good character, was sentenced in the Crown Court at St Albans to a total of 20 months' immediate imprisonment following committal for sentence after entering guilty pleas to three counts of making indecent photographs of children (categories A, B and C), one count of possessing prohibited images of children, one count of possessing extreme pornographic images and one count of sending indecent or obscene communications by a public communications network.[2]Leave to appeal was granted on the basis that the sentencing judge may have erred in principle in declining to suspend the term and in failing to notify defence counsel of his intention to make adverse findings on the evidence.[3]The appellant's offending came to light after the police executed a search warrant at his home in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, on 5 June 2024. Devices were seized. He refused to provide the PINS but police later gained access. Forensic examination revealed 4005 category A images, 2960 category B, 8274 category C, 48 prohibited images and 447 extreme pornographic images involving sexual activity with animals. The category A material included images of children as young as 3 being raped. One video depicted a 7-year-old child bleeding following penetrative abuse. Alongside this material were sexually explicit online communications with an adult user with the name "Ellie" between April 2022 and April 2024, in which the appellant graphically described sexual acts he wished to carry out on children. Ellie claimed to have nieces aged 4 and 11 years.[4]The appellant had a stable employment history including over a decade in NHS administrative roles and more recently he worked in IT support for an insurance company. He lived with his parents providing daily care to his father after significant medical problems in 2023.[5]A detailed pre-sentence report was prepared dated 4 December 2025. It contains several significant passages which we set out. The report recorded:
"Mr Goutam states he fully accepts his responsibility for his offending behaviour, consistently expressly remorse and self- denegation." "
He commented that he feels horrible knowing that he enjoyed viewing these images." "When asked about the impact... he stated he could not imagine the suffering they endured but appreciated he contributed to a supply demand cycle."[6]These passages demonstrated more than formulaic remorse, they appear to evidence a developing insight into victim harm and the social context of child sexual abuse material. As to victim impact:
"Whilst he struggled to articulate specific ways in which they would suffer, he was nonetheless aware that his behaviour had contributed to a supply demand cycle that resulted in victims being re-victimised."
The pre-sentence report further noted:
"To his credit Mr Goutam recognises that his sexual interests are a problem and he has sought professional help to address it." "
He has begun to address his offending behaviour via Stop It Now and has expressed a desire to save up the required £700 to complete the Inform Plus Programme."[7]The pre-sentence report identified this as a "significant protective factor present now but not at the time of offending." The actuarial tools which are used to assess future risk produce these findings: an OGRS3 score of 7 per cent (equivalent to low risk of general reoffending); an RSR score of 3.97 per cent, which means a medium risk of serious harm and a low risk of contact sexual offending and a medium risk of further image-based offending. The author of the report noted that there had been no repeat offending in the last 20 months since the index offences were committed. In the author's view the appellant was "suitable for a sentence served in the community". Alongside a sexual harm prevention order and notification requirements, components of such a sentence could include rehabilitation activity requirements sessions using the Maps For Change Toolkit and unpaid work.[8]In mitigation, defence counsel adopted the reasoning in the pre-sentence report urging suspension of the inevitable custodial sentence on the basis that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The appellant had taken voluntary steps to address his behaviour, he posed no imminent risk of contact offending, immediate custody would cause a significant harmful impact on his family and he had been compliant on bail for 20 months. Counsel expressly invited the judge to consider sentencing authorities: R v Ramos [2022] EWCA Crim 425 and R v Evans [2022] EWCA Crim 1390, where this Court emphasised the public interest in reducing future offending through rehabilitation, particularly in image offending cases.[9]In his sentencing remarks

the judge described the imagery correctly as "extreme" and noted:

"The images in relation to category A relate to children who are as young as three being penetrated. The videos are lengthy and some of them show children in distress. In one instance, the child is bleeding."
The judge set starting points of 2½ years for the category A offences reduced to 20 months after the required one-third credit for an early guilty plea; 12 months for category B reduced to 8 months; 20 weeks for category C reduced to 3 months; 18 months for the prohibited images reduced to 8 months and 12 months for extreme pornography reduced to 6 months.[10]In light of the need for the total sentence to be just and proportionate, all these terms were ordered to run concurrently.[11]Turning to suspension

the judge stated:

"I have considered very carefully the remarks made by your barrister and I note that whilst you have begun courses intended to address your offending behaviour and have expressed a desire to undertake more courses once you save money to do so, there is no objective evidence ...to demonstrate a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community at this stage and I do not consider there to be strong personal mitigation."
Also:
"While I note your father's ill health on the information before me, I do not judge the impact of your imprisonment to be significant."
[12]In his otherwise careful sentencing remarks the judge made no reference to the detailed findings of the pre-sentence report on remorse, insight and developing rehabilitation which we have set out or the absence of any other offending for 20 months, the voluntary completion of two Stop It Now courses, the appellant's intention to undertake Inform Plus and the pre-sentence explicit community sentence recommendation and the authorities emphasising the role of rehabilitation in such cases. He concluded that the gravity of the offending demonstrated by the volume of images and the period over which the indictment spanned was such that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.[13]There is no challenge to the total custodial term of 20 months. We summarise the grounds of appeal advanced in writing: (1)Failure to give sufficient weight to mitigation. Leave was refused on this ground and is not renewed. (2)Mischaracterising the evidence by asserting an absence of objective evidence of rehabilitation and failure to engage with the pre-sentence report's conclusions and its recommendation for a community disposal. (3)Procedural unfairness, making adverse findings about rehabilitation and remorse without giving counsel prior notice or an opportunity to address those concerns.[14]The imposition of the Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline effective from 1 September 2025 identifies four factors indicating suspension may be appropriate. These must be weighted alongside the seriousness of the offending. They are: (1)A realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community. (2)The offender does not present a high risk of re-offending or of serious harm. (3)Strong personal mitigation and (4)Significant harmful impact on others of immediate custody.[15]Mr Beardsworth's submissions on the two grounds before us can be encapsulated thus. There are here strong prospects for rehabilitation as the fact of detection and prosecution has shocked the appellant into a strong commitment to desist in the future. He could have done no more than he did and there was no reason not to accept that this is a case in which future offending could be reduced by rehabilitation to address what had become habitual behaviour. Mr Beardsworth reminds the Court of the reasoning in the authorities he had put before the sentencing judge.[16]We have reminded ourselves of those judgments, and we agree with the appellant that the judge's conclusion that there was no objective evidence of the prospects of rehabilitation is unsustainable. The pre-sentence report provided extended documented material indicating rehabilitative progress, noting remorse described as "persistent", "acute", "self-denigrating", a recognition of distorted sexual interest, voluntary engagement with two courses (planning to undertake a third), and no further offending for nearly 2 years. Furthermore, this was an appellant who presented an overall low risk of general recidivism and a low risk of contact offending. His previous good character, work record and to a degree his family caring duties, provided some mitigation, albeit the judge was justified in concluding that his father's care was primarily carried out by the appellant's mother and there was other evidence that another sibling lived close by. So this was not a case of significant harmful impact on others from immediate custody.[17]We also agree with the appellant that the judge made material adverse findings, particularly about rehabilitation and remorse, without giving defence counsel any overt indication prior to passing sentence that these matters were in issue. However, we do not consider that this is correctly characterised as a procedural irregularity. In this case it was obvious that the mitigation had to address the Imposition Guideline and both rehabilitation prospects and the genuineness of remorse would be significant features in the assessment the judge had to make. Genuine remorse is a matter quite distinct from entering a guilty plea and an offender is entitled to a reduction in sentence based on remorse, despite entering a guilty plea at the first available opportunity. Judges will also consider the contents of a pre-sentence report carefully. However, a judge is not bound to accept any recommendation made in such a report.[18]In practice, when a judge doubts the genuineness of remorse expressed to a probation officer, or questions whether real rehabilitation efforts have been made, this represents the judge's assessment of evidence already before the court. It is self-evidently an evaluative judgment about the weight or credibility of the mitigation presented, either in reports, in a plea in mitigation, or in character or other evidence placed before the judge. The judge is not required to give advance warning of such doubts. However, there is a statutory duty to give reasons for the sentence which will set out the conclusions reached. It is counsel's responsibility to place clearly before the court matters which should bear on the weight to be attributed to the mitigation advanced. This position is to be contrasted to where there are sharp divergences on the question of fact relevant to sentence. Then the court can hear evidence of one side or the other and come to a conclusion, or hear no evidence and reach a view on the basis of submissions of counsel applying the criminal standard of proof. But if it does that declining to hear evidence, it must come down on the side of the defendant if there is a substantial conflict (see R v Newton (Robert John) (1983) 77 Cr App R 13).[19]If the sentencing remarks reveal, as here, that the judge has not given any weight to cogent mitigation and appears to have refused to suspend the sentence on the premise that only completed accredited treatment for example would count as rehabilitation, an appeal may succeed. This Court has previously held that early insight, willingness to engage and voluntary pre-sentence work may well justify suspension, particularly where treatment in the community is more likely to reduce future offending. A failure to properly assess such features may lead to an error of principle because the guideline was incorrectly applied rather than due to any procedural unfairness.[20]Returning to our conclusions on the ground that has substance. The application of the Imposition Guideline requires a careful analysis as the cases referred to explain. The gravity of this offending cannot be denied. The Sentencing Council Guideline for the offence makes clear that the custody threshold is passed and, even in the case of a man with no previous convictions, custody is therefore the starting point. Where a number of images is so great and their content at the extreme end of the category and the offending takes place over a lengthy period of time, indicating entrenched patterns of behaviour, a sentencing court will need persuasion that an immediate custodial sentence is not called for. The harm done to children in the production of these images is so destructive of personal dignity and psychological health that the consumers who populate the market for them must bear responsibility for seriously damaging highly vulnerable victims.[21]However, overall, we are unable to agree that the appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody here. This was a first conviction. The appellant was remorseful, had already engaged in rehabilitative efforts, which he was committed to continuing, and in the circumstances protection of the public in the long term might well be achieved through further rehabilitation more realistically than the impact of a relatively short period of custody. The fact that the appellant has started on courses which would have been challenging to undertake and expressed his intention to continue this process may not be objective evidence in the sense that it was not independent of the appellant's own stated aim but, if that was what the judge required, the threshold being set was unrealistic.[22]In line with this reasoning, the appeal succeeds. We quash the order of immediate custody and substitute a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months with the following requirements. In reaching these requirements we have taken into account that the appellant has spent some time in custody already. There will be two requirements. The first is a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 30 days incorporating the Maps For Change Programme and the second requirement is 120 hours' unpaid work in the community. The statutory notification requirements and the sexual harm prevention order in place for 10 years remain alongside forfeiture and destruction orders imposed in the Crown Court and the victim surcharge. To that extent, this appeal succeeds.[23]MR BEARDSWORTH: My Lady, my Lords I am grateful. May I ask if there is anything that I ought to do to effect his prompt release?

LORD JUSTICE FRASER: You will however, I am sure, have a post-hearing conference with him. It is in his interests, and I always do this, to request counsel specifically to explain to him in everyday terms what the impact is were he to commit any offence, not a like offence but an offence whatsoever, during the operational period of the suspended sentence.

[25]MR BEARDSWORTH: Understood. 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 26. Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk