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 is not to 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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R EXCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
(HER HONOUR JUDGE CLEMITSON) [10U85123525]
Case No 2026/00995/A2 Tuesday 19 May 2026
[2026] EWCA Crim 733
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MR JUSTICE GOOSE
MR JUSTICE SAINI
____________________
- v –
Between
PAUL REYNOLDS____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)___________________Mr J Smith appeared for Appellant___________________J U D G M E N TDate 2026-05-19
[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this appeal (see paragraph 2.1 of the Practical Guide to Reporting Restrictions in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division). Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to them shall during their lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the victim of the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
Introduction
[2]On 9 March 2026, in the Crown Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne, the appellant was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Clemitson to 18 months' imprisonment for eight offences of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. He had previously pleaded guilty before the magistrates' court, at which time he was aged 71. He is now aged 72.[3]The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
The Offences
[4]The appellant's offending was committed whilst he was aged between 14 and 16. The complainant was a younger child, aged between 9 and 11 when the offences occurred. It involved the appellant touching the vagina of the complainant and progressing to licking her vagina, as well as penetrating it with his tongue.[5]Counts 1 and 2 respectively comprised the offences of touching and licking, whilst counts 3, 5 and 7 involved multiple incidents of touching the complainant's vagina when she was aged 9, 10 and 11. Counts 4, 6 and 8 concerned multiple incidents of licking and penetration with his tongue of the complainant's vagina, also when she was aged 9, 10 and 11. By the time the appellant had turned 17, the conduct had ceased.[6]The offending was not reported to anyone after the appellant had told the complainant to remain quiet. It was not until much later in her life that the offending, which occurred between 1969 and 1971, was brought to the attention of others and later to the attention of the police.[7]Upon his arrest, the appellant made full admissions of the offences and in due course made full admissions before the court. He pleaded guilty to the offences at the first reasonable opportunity before the magistrates' court.[8]Since these offences, the appellant has not further offended. He has led an otherwise law abiding life supporting his family.[9]In contrast, the complainant has suffered considerably as a result of the offending upon her; her difficulties are reflected within her Victim Personal Statement which was considered carefully by the sentencing judge. She was affected both as a child and in her adult life. She required therapy and support. The judge described that the complainant had suffered from serious psychological harm which she had carried with her all of her adult life.
Sentencing
[10]The judge appropriately described that sentencing of the appellant was of an adult for his offending whilst he was effectively a child aged 14, 15 and 16. Whilst that did not affect the harm caused to the complainant, it considerably affected the appellant's culpability and his sentencing. The judge expressly considered the decision of R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281, and the necessary considerations when sentencing offenders many years after offences have been committed whilst they were a child.[11]The judge also took into account the Children Guideline, given the age of the appellant when he committed these offences, and notwithstanding that he is now an adult, and the maximum sentence at the time of the offending, which was five years' custody. For that offence an offender of the age of the appellant at the time it occurred, a custodial sentence of detention (borstal training) was available for serious offending. Accordingly, sentences of detention were available for such offending in appropriate cases.[12]It was necessary also for the judge to assess the harm caused and the appellant's culpability at the time of offending and to apply any aggravating and mitigating factors. Those which aggravated the seriousness of the offending were that it took place over a substantial period of time; that it included penetrative offending; and that the appellant had warned the complainant to remain quiet about what he was doing.[13]Those factors which were in mitigation of the seriousness of the offending included: the lack of previous convictions since the offending; the appellant's positive good character during his adult life; the clear and obvious remorse which was expressed in his early guilty pleas and within the pre-sentence report; the significant delay in investigating the offending once it had been raised with others; and the effect of any custodial sentence upon the appellant's wife who was in need of care from the appellant.[14]The judge appropriately discounted the custodial term which was to be imposed to reduce by one half any sentence reflecting the time when the appellant was aged 14, and by one third when he was aged 15 and 16. Taking into account the principle of totality, the judge imposed concurrent sentences on all offending and gave a full guilty plea discount. This resulted in concurrent terms of four months' imprisonment upon counts 1 and 2, one year's imprisonment on counts 3, 5 and 7 (reflecting the multiple offending when touching the complainant during the ages of 9, 10 and 11) and 18 months' imprisonment on counts 4, 6 and 8 (reflecting multiple offending of penetration with his tongue whilst she was aged 9, 10 and 11).[15]The judge went on to consider whether the resulting sentence of 18 months' imprisonment might be suspended, applying the Imposition Guideline. Although it was recognised that many of the factors indicating that the suspension of the sentence might be appropriate, they were outweighed by the judge's conclusion that the offending required punishment which could only be achieved by a sentence of immediate custody, given the period of time over which the offending occurred and the substantial harm caused. The judge's conclusion was therefore that the appellant must serve his sentence immediately.
The Grounds of Appeal
[16]On behalf of the appellant it is argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Reliance is placed upon seven grounds of appeal, which can be summarised as follows:(1) That insufficient weight was given to the age of the offences and the fact that the appellant was a child himself;(2) That insufficient weight was given to the appellant's remorse;(3) That there was significant delay after others were informed of the offending after 1990 before the police became involved;(4) That insufficient weight was given to the appellant's good character since the offending; and(5) That the decision not to suspend the custodial sentence rendered it excessive.[17]In oral argument Mr Smith, for whose submissions we are grateful, emphasised the consequences for the appellant since his conviction and in particular their effect upon him and his family after living a blameless adult life. Mr Smith submitted that the sentence should have been non-custodial, failing which it should have been suspended.
Discussion and Conclusion
[18]It is clear to this Court that the sentencing of the appellant in this case was a difficult sentencing exercise. It cannot be said that the judge failed to take into account any of the circumstances of the offences or of the offender which he should have done, nor that she took into account matters she should not have done. Indeed, it is clear to us that the judge appropriately identified the sentencing principles and those which concern the sentencing of an adult offender for offences committed whilst they were a child. We can find no error in the sentencing principles adopted by the judge. Nor do we consider that the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was wrong in principle or excessive. The sentencing remarks by this experienced criminal judge were careful and appropriate.[19]Further, we are not persuaded that the decision to refuse to suspend the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed meant that it was either wrong or excessive. The judge took into account the Imposition Guideline and its factors which indicate whether or not a custodial sentence might be suspended. The judge was entitled to conclude that the most significant factor in the measure was that which was required to reflect that an appropriate punishment could only be achieved by a sentence of immediate custody.[20]In conclusion, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the judge was wrong or excessive. Accordingly, we must dismiss this 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 ______________________________