R v Edward Griffiths-Davies [2026] EWCA Crim 737

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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Between

R E XCrown

London

WC2A 2LL

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LIVERPOOL

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WOODHALL) [05D20024625]

Case No 2026/00408/A1 Thursday 21 May 2026

Neutral Citation No: [2026] EWCA Crim 737

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

MR JUSTICE GOOSE

THE RECORDER OF SHEFFIELD

(His Honour Judge Richardson KC)

(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

____________________

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE

UNDER SECTION 36 OF

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988)

____________________

- v -

Between

EDWARD GRIFFITHS-DAVIES

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

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

_____________________

Mr W Martin appeared for Attorney General

Mr J K Baxter appeared for Offender

____________________

J U D G M E N T

(Approved)

____________________

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. 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 s.3 of the Act.

Date 2026-05-21

[1]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer as unduly lenient a sentence of four years and four months' imprisonment passed on the offender by His Honour Judge Woodhall sitting in the Crown Court at Liverpool on 5 January 2026. The individual sentences passed on the eight counts to which he pleaded guilty were as follows, all to run concurrently with each other: Count 1, causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, four years and four months' imprisonment. Count 3, distributing indecent photographs of children (category A images), contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, two years and four months' imprisonment. Count 4, distributing indecent photographs of children (category B images), contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the 1978 Act, eight months' imprisonment. Counts 5, 6 and 7, making indecent photographs of children (category A images, category B images and category C images respectively), contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, 12 months' imprisonment on count 5, 20 weeks' imprisonment on count 6, and six weeks' imprisonment on count 7. Count 8, possession of prohibited images of children, contrary to section 62(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (six images which were either cartoons or computer generated), six weeks' imprisonment. Count 9, possessing extreme pornographic images, contrary to section 63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (images of bestiality), six weeks' imprisonment. In addition there were imposed an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a 15 year Restraining Order. The Facts

[2]The victim of count 1, "V", is a 6 year old boy. V is entitled to lifelong anonymity, pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. No matter relating to V shall during his lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as the victim of the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

[3]The offender was arrested on 1 March 2024 as part of a National Crime Agency investigation into a child sexual abuse group on the Telegram messaging application. The group had a particular name, which we will anonymise as the AB Group. The primary purpose of the group was to facilitate the generation of original child sexual abuse imagery by having its members abuse children to whom they had access. Members also shared other child sexual abuse imagery, both within the group and directly to each other in private messaging.

[4]In order to join the group, aspiring members were required to submit an original image of a naked child, with the group name shown within the image. The purpose of this exercise was to prove that the applicant had access to a child who could be abused. The group moderators would then assess the submitted image to determine whether to grant the applicant membership.

[5]Count 1 relates to a photograph which the offender took of V. It is a picture of him from the neck down, naked, taken from the front, holding a handwritten sign on which the name of the group was written. This was the image the offender submitted to the group in order to join. It was taken and submitted in June 2023.

[6]The offender was aware that V had developmental vulnerabilities. He had been assessed as neurodivergent, with a diagnosis of ADHD, and was prescribed medication for his condition. He struggled with dysregulated behaviour.

[7]In June 2023, having joined the group, the offender was in conversation with another user. The latter asked whether the offender had "done anything" with V. The offender replied, "I haven't yet. As mentioned in group he likes to tell everyone everything at the moment lol". The two then exchanged images of child sexual abuse. In another conversation in July 2023 with the same group user, that user asked whether the offender has spent any "naked time" with V, to which he replied, "not … unfortunately …"

[8]The NCA investigation revealed that the offender had been a member of least three messaging groups dedicated to child sexual abuse material, and a further group dedicated to bestiality. The offender had distributed 27 category A images (count 3) and ten category B images (count 4) within these various groups.

[9]The total number of category A images found on the offender's devices was 614 (count 5). There were 324 category B images (count 6) and 552 category C images (count 7). The majority of the images showed children aged between 4 and 10 years. The images included a number of images of infants and toddlers. Many images showed children in obvious pain or distress. Analysis showed that the offender had accessed such images as far back as September 2012.

[10]As we have identified, there were also six prohibited images of children in the form of cartoons or computer generated images depicting child sexual abuse (count 8). There were 24 images of bestiality (count 9).

[11]Following arrest, the offender was interviewed under caution by police on 2 March 2024. He answered "No comment" to all questions asked. He adopted the same approach when he was further interviewed on 2 July 2024.

[12]The offender is now aged 43. He has no previous convictions or cautions. He pleaded guilty to the offences at the plea and trial preparation hearing and was given credit of a full one third for his pleas because he had been awaiting psychiatric reports on his fitness to plead. No criticism is made of the level of credit he was given for his guilty pleas.

The Sentencing Hearing

[13]The sentencing hearing commenced on 18 December 2025. The judge had a sentencing note from the prosecution. In respect of the lead offence (count 1), it was submitted that the offending fell within category 2A of the relevant sentencing guideline, with a starting point of eight years' imprisonment and a range of five to ten years. It was placed by the Crown in category 2, on the basis of the child being particularly vulnerable due to extreme youth and/or personal circumstances; and it was placed in category A on the basis of abuse of trust, a significant degree of planning, and the sharing of the image.

[14]The judge was provided with a pre-sentence report, dated 11 December 2025, in which the author noted, amongst other things, that the offender claimed to have been ignorant of the fact that he had been appointed as an administrator or moderator of the Telegram group. He had said to the author that he was unable to recall the precise time period when he first started to access child sexual abuse material. He demonstrated what the author regarded as genuine regret and remorse, and he took responsibility for his actions. He understood the serious and emotional psychological harm that his offending would cause to children, and in particular to V. The offender suffered from depression, for which he had been prescribed medication, and he had attempted to end his life in August 2024 and in early 2025. He had some insight into his offending. He presented as very motivated to engage with work and intervention. The author considered that he presented a high risk of serious harm to children.

[15]The judge was also provided with a Victim Impact Statement from V's father, which set out the background to V's vulnerabilities and the detrimental effect of the offending on V.

[16]At the sentencing hearing there was discussion between the parties and the judge in respect of the appropriate categorisation of harm under the guideline. As we have said, the prosecution submitted that V, at the age of 6, was particularly vulnerable due to extreme youth. The judge indicated that he had in mind that there were cases which provided assistance on that question, but neither counsel was at the time of the hearing before him in a position to assist him with those authorities. The prosecution submitted that, in any event, V was particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances, which the defence conceded in the light of the information about V. Accordingly, on that basis, the defence and prosecution agreed that count 1 should properly be categorised as a category 2A offence under the relevant guideline.

[17]18 December was the judge's last sitting day before Christmas. He adjourned sentence to the next available day, 5 January 2026, in order to enable consideration of the point about "extreme youth". In correspondence which passed between the legal representatives of the parties and the judge in that intervening period, the judge was reminded of the relevant authorities: R v W

[2022] EWCA Crim 1793

, where the victim was 5 or 6 years old; R v KC

[2019] EWCA Crim 1632

, where the victim was aged 7 to 8; and R v Bajwa

[2025] EWCA Crim 1496

, where the victim was 8 years old. In none of those cases was the victim treated as being particularly vulnerable due to extreme youth. That is because whether youth is extreme in the sense in which the word is used in the guideline has to be judged in the context of an offence which can only be committed against a child aged under 13. At the resumed hearing, the judge expressed the view that V's age did not amount to youth which was extreme for the purposes of the guideline factor in the context of an offence which could only be committed against a child aged under 13. No criticism is made of that conclusion.

[18]In an email sent to counsel on the morning of the resumed hearing,

the judge stated:

"At this afternoon's hearing, I would welcome some submissions on the assistance of the indecent images guideline in relation to the offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (i.e. production of the image taken of [V].)"

[19]At the resumed hearing, the judge observed that the conduct captured by count 1 could have been charged as production of an indecent photograph of a child under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The photograph would for those purposes be in category C and it followed that the starting point, had the offence been so charged, would have been 18 months' imprisonment, with a range of one to three years, as against a starting point of eight years' imprisonment for the offence under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The judge said that he recognised that if it had been charged in that way under the 1978 Act, that would not factor in the severely aggravating features, but he observed that there was a huge difference between the two starting points.

[20]In his sentencing remarks the judge referred to the impact on V set out in the statement by V's father. He recorded the mitigation available to the offender in the following terms:

"You are 42 years of age and of previous good character. I have read and fully taken into account the contents of the pre-sentence report. You made frank admissions of seeking to gain indecent images of children, although in fact no other sensible or viable explanation could have been forthcoming. It remains the case that many in your position cannot bring themselves to admit publicly what they have done. You have achieved that, although when you are recalling some of the detail it is clear you did seek to minimise your own activities when you compare your account with the evidence in this case. You have demonstrated what the probation officer has described as genuine regret and remorse. You have an obvious sexual interest in children. You have described your own mental health issues, which I take into account as a mitigating feature, and against that background the author of the report assesses you as posing a low to medium risk of reoffending but presently a high risk of serious harm to children."

[21]The judge treated the count 1 offence as falling within category 2 as a result of V being particularly vulnerable for a range of reasons which we do not need to identify; and as falling within category A by reason of the three guideline factors relied on by the prosecution. He went on:

"The guideline therefore gives a starting point of eight years' imprisonment and a range of five to ten years. That said, I also bear in mind that the offending in this case did not involve an overt sexual assault as to which the other category 2 criteria attach. It was a single incident and does not sit readily with the activities contemplated by this particular guideline. For those listening to this, that is because the guideline is designed to reflect a whole range of sexual activity and sexual assaults. These factors that I have just identified, coupled with the fact that multiple other elements have combined to place this offending within category 2 mean that to do justice to this case and to avoid applying the guideline like a statute, movement down from the starting point towards the bottom of the range identified is necessary before considering aggravating and mitigating features. In coming to this conclusion, and in seeking to reach a just and proportionate sentence, I bear in mind that the production of a category C image, which is another way this assault charge could have been indicted, would provide on the guideline that would apply then a starting point of 18 months, with a range of up to three years. Of course the application of that guideline would not factor in any of the severe aggravating features which would apply here, including [the judge then listed a number of them] … all of which would require a very significant increase in the level of sentence identified on that guideline as the starting point and undoubtedly to a sentence outside of the range identified. I also apply the distribution of indecent images guideline … Turning then to aggravating and mitigating features, in relation to the most serious offence the aggravating features have effectively been taken into account in placing the offending in category 2 harm, namely the age and vulnerabilities of your victim and [other matters to which the judge then referred]. … In relation to the image offences, they are aggravated by the fact that they included moving images, the very young age of the children depicted and the depiction of children in pain. As far as mitigation is concerned, it is to be found in our previous good character, your frank admissions, regret and remorse and your own mental health issues. The offending relating to the indecent images is of course separate to the offending committed directly against [V]. However, the two are related as it was the taking of the image of [V] which opened the door to your engagement on at least one platform used for image sharing. I intend to increase the sentence for the lead offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity to reflect the other associated offending and to ensure that the total sentence remains just and proportionate. Concurrent sentences will then be appropriate for all other offences. … For the offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, the appropriate sentence after trial would have been five years' imprisonment. That is then elevated to reflect the other offending to six and a half years' imprisonment, and then reduced for your guilty plea to four years four months' imprisonment. For the offence of distributing category A images the appropriate sentence after trial would have been three and a half years' imprisonment, reduced for your guilty plea to two years and four months. …"

The judge then announced the other concurrent sentences and the ancillary orders.

Submissions

[23]On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Martin makes no criticism of the judge's treatment of count 1 as the lead offence; nor does he make any criticism of the increase of 18 months after allowance for totality for the offending reflected in concurrent sentences on the other counts. His submission is that in arriving at a sentence after trial of five years' imprisonment on count 1 (the bottom of the range), the judge reached a sentence which was unduly lenient. He submits that there was no proper basis for such a significant reduction from the starting point of eight years. In his submission, the judge appeared to have done so on the basis of the nature of the sexual activity. The judge stated that the offending was "not an overt sexual assault … that did not sit readily within the guidelines". Mr Martin submitted that that significantly overstated the position, as the offending was properly captured by the guidelines; and he referred to the fact that the explanatory note to the guidelines gives an example of an offence committed under section 8 of the 2003 Act, having a child stripped naked (albeit that that was cited in the context of a charge particularised as incitement). Mr Martin submitted that whilst it could be argued that the particular nature of the activity in this case may have weighed in favour of a small downward adjustment to the starting point, the presence of three separate culpability A factors weighed in favour of an uplift and provided a significant counter-balance. In his written submission, he suggested that the starting point of eight years' imprisonment ought not to have been adjusted downward at all.

[24]In his oral submissions this morning, Mr Martin took a slightly different approach. He recognised that some downward adjustment from the starting point of eight years was appropriate for the nature of the offending, and that some further downward adjustment was permissible for the mitigation afforded by the offender's lack of previous convictions, his remorse and his mental health difficulties, such as they were. In his oral submissions, Mr Martin suggested that an appropriate sentence for the section 1 offence alone (after a trial) would be one of six and a half years' imprisonment.

[25]Mr Martin also submitted that the judge had (as he put it) become distracted by the sentencing guideline for the production of indecent photographs, although he accepted that what mattered was whether the sentence was unduly lenient in relation to the section 8 guideline.

[26]On behalf of the offender, in helpful written submissions, Mr Baxter argued that the judge had adopted a careful, structured and guideline-compliant approach; that he had not made any error of principle; that weighing the various features of the particular facts of this case was a matter very much within his discretion; that, in summary, he had performed an exercise which was appropriately performed; and that his conclusion resulted in a sentence which was appropriate; alternatively, if lenient, it was not unduly lenient.

Conclusion

[27]The judge took great care over this sentencing exercise. He was entitled to take into account that the activity involved in the offence, namely taking a photograph of the child standing up naked, was a less serious activity than the activity in many offences which fall within this category of the guideline for this offence, which has amongst its factors penetrative activity with a child; whilst at the same time recognising, as the judge did, that the gravity of the offender's offending lay not so much in the nature of the activity itself as with the intended and actual use of the image, which was one of the matters which placed it in category 2A. He was also entitled to take the view that many of the aggravating features were already taken into account in the categorisation. The starting point in a category is just that, a starting point. It falls to be adjusted to reflect the seriousness of the offending gauged against the broad spectrum of cases which may fall within that category, before adjusting for specific aggravating and mitigating factors, and it must be applied flexibly so as to be tailored to the seriousness of the particular offending. It is an error on Mr Martin's part to argue that the fact that there were three category A factors is something which mechanistically requires a significant uplift. The judge did not simply go straight to the bottom of the range by reference to the circumstances of the offending; he indicated that that entitled him to move downwards towards the lower end of the range – something which Mr Martin's oral submissions to us recognised was entirely permissible. Accordingly, there was in this case some real mitigation to be taken into account.

[28]In our view, there was nothing necessarily wrong with the judge having in mind the guideline for the offence of production of child images. He did not purport to apply that guideline; on the contrary, he applied the offence specific guideline for the offence charged under section 8 of the 2003 Act. He merely had in mind the guideline for the production of child images as a crosscheck. He recognised that the starting point – and indeed the top of the range for such an offence – would need to be exceeded by a considerable margin for the serious aggravating features which would have had to have been taken into account had that been the offence which had been charged. Nevertheless, the guideline might have been of assistance in giving a sense of the culpability attributed by the Sentencing Council to the production of an image of this nature, without more. It is sound sentencing practice for a judge to take measured and proportionate account of where the sentence he proposes to impose would sit in relation to a form of offending with an overlapping feature. It was not necessary for him to have taken into account the guideline in relation to producing images of children, but he was not led into any error in doing so.

[29]We should emphasise that the principles which are to be applied on an Attorney General's Reference are of importance. They are reflected in a number of authorities. Examples include: Attorney General's Refence No 4 of 1989

[1990] 1 WLR 41

, at page 46A – C; Attorney General's Reference No 132 of 2001 (R v Bryn Johnson)

[2002] EWCA Crim 1418

[2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 41

, at [24]; Attorney General's Reference No 6 of 2012

[2012] EWCA Crim 2746

, at [19]; and Attorney General's Reference (R v Howard)

[2016] EWCA Crim 1511

[2017] 1 Cr App R(S) 8

, at [27]. They may be summarised briefly as follows. A sentence is unduly lenient where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. It must always be remembered that sentencing is an art rather than a science; and that the trial judge is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to various competing considerations. Leniency, where the facts justify it, is to be commended, not condemned (a sentiment enshrined in section 231(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020, which provides that a custodial sentence must be the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offending). The purpose of the system of Attorney General's References is the avoidance of gross error, the allaying of widespread concern at what may appear to be an unduly lenient sentence, and the preservation of public confidence in cases where a judge appears to have departed to a substantial extent from the norms of sentencing generally applied by the courts in cases of a particular type.

[30]We fear that the Solicitor General may have lost sight of these principles in this case. Mr Martin's submissions to us, which we have set out, suggested an appropriate sentence for the section 1 offence alone (after a trial) of six and a half years' imprisonment, which after uplift for the other image offences would involve a sentence (after a trial) for all the offending of eight years' imprisonment. The judge took a figure for a sentence (after a trial) for all the offending of six and a half years' imprisonment.

[31]When those figures were put to him, Mr Martin submitted that, nevertheless, that would justify the Reference being allowed, because that would not involve "tinkering". That is entirely to misunderstand the appropriate test which needed to be satisfied for interfering with a sentence on an Attorney General's Reference.

[32]Looking at the matter overall, and taking into account the uplift of 18 months for the other offending, which it is not suggested was lenient, we consider that although a longer sentence could properly have been justified, the total sentence passed in this case was not unduly lenient.

[33]In the circumstances, we refuse leave.

[34]There is one other very small matter which we should mention. It relates to the victim surcharge. We are grateful, as ever, to the Criminal Appeal Office for having brought this to our attention. In his sentencing remarks,

the judge stated:

"This is a case to which the victim surcharge applies. It will be drawn up in the appropriate sum with a collection order attached."

[35]However, as some of the offending on the indictment preceded 1 October 2012, no victim surcharge order would have been appropriate in this case. We do not know whether in fact, pursuant to the judge's remarks, the record reflects a victim surcharge being imposed. If it did, it should not have done, and the record should be corrected. ____________________________ 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 ______________________________