WARNING: reporting restrictions apply to the contents transcribed in this document, 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 LEWES
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOLD) [47WW0471219]
Case No 2026/00478/A5 Friday 22 May 2026
Neutral Citation No: [2026] EWCA Crim 738
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MRS JUSTICE STEYN DBE
MR JUSTICE EYRE
____________________
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE
UNDER SECTION 36 OF
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988)
____________________
- v -
Between
ANDREW SHRIVES____________________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 B Holt appeared for Attorney GeneralMiss R Saimbhi appeared for Offender____________________J U D G M E N T(Approved)____________________The victims in this case are entitled to lifelong anonymity pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to the victim shall during their 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 2026-05-22
[1]Following a trial in the Crown Court at Lewes before His Honour Judge Gold KC and a jury, the offender was convicted of 12 offences. His Majesty's Solicitor General seeks leave to refer as unduly lenient the sentence of seven years' imprisonment passed by the trial judge on 9 January 2026.[2]All bar one of the offences were sexual offences committed against three child victims, to whom we shall refer as V1, V2 and V3 respectively. The victims are entitled to lifelong anonymity, pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to the victim shall during their lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the offence. That prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.[3]The total sentence of seven years was structured by way of consecutive sentences for each victim, but concurrent sentences inter se for each victim. The offences and sentences were as follows: Offences against V1 Count 1, Indecency with a Child, contrary to section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, 18 months imprisonment. Count 2, Indecent Assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, 2 years imprisonment. Offences against V2 Each of counts 3 to 7 charged Sexual Assault of a Child under 13, contrary to section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offender was sentence on each to 3 years imprisonment. Count 8 charged Sexual Activity with a Child, contrary to section 9(1) of the 2003 Act. The sentence was 2 years imprisonment. Offences against V3 On each of counts 9 to 11, which charged Sexual Assault of a Child aged under 13, contrary to section 7(1) of the 2003 Act, the offender was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Other Offence Count 12 charged Making Indecent Photographs of Children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The offender was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
The Facts
[4]The offences against V1 involved two specific incidents, committed in the 1990s.[5]When V1 was around 4 or 5 years of age she had been visiting the offender's house with her family. They had been playing a game. The offender sat in the corner of the room, pulled down his trousers and was playing with his penis, as she described it, more or less shaking it about in front of her. V1 believed that the offender's son was present when this took place (count 1).[6]The second incident occurred at another house when she was 9 or 10 years old. She was playing with the offender and other children. The offender asked her to sit on his lap. He said that he wanted to see how she was "developing". He then put his hands down her trousers, touched her vagina, but did not penetrate it (count 2).[7]The offences against V2 involved multiple offending when V2 was between the ages of 6 and 16. The first offending against her occurred when she was visiting the offender's address and he asked her if she wanted to play a game. The offender took her upstairs and removed her clothes. She lay down on the landing. The offender tickled her and kissed her all over her body. His fingers touched her vagina (count 3). The offender also kissed her on her vagina (count 5). These incidents were initially indicted as assaults by penetration; but the counts were amended during the course of the trial to reflect the fact that the touching and kissing had not involved any penetration.[8]Counts 4 and 6 were multiple incident counts reflecting the same behaviour on at least three further occasions. One such occasion was when V2 was aged 7 or 8 and had fallen over in the mud while playing a game. The offender had offered her a change of clothing. Another was when she had been playing "hide and seek" in a shed and the offender had found her. V2's evidence was that such behaviour had occurred on more than ten occasions.[9]Count 7 charged a separate specific incident when V2 had had been visiting the offender's house with a family friend. It involved her going for a walk in the woods. The offender took her to an abandoned shed. He began to kiss her and he put his hand inside her trousers and onto her vagina.[10]V2 also recalled a number of other incidents which did not progress as far and were not charged as separate offences, but demonstrated the offender's sexual interest in her and sexual behaviour towards her. She said that he took any opportunity to touch her. She recalled him taking her driving, in the course of which he touched her legs. On an occasion he lay under the trampoline while she bounced on it. There were occasions, she said, on which he would lie on the bed with her and he would take opportunities to hug her, to rub her side, and to put his hand under her top.[11]When she was about 12 years old, there was an occasion on which the offender had put his hand under her top and bra. Following this, she sent a message to the offender about his behaviour. Prior to that, she had felt unable to act. However, following this occasion she sent a Facebook message to the offender saying that he needed to stop and that she did not want to go through such behaviour. He replied that he was sorry and did not mean to hurt her.[12]This reduced the frequency of the abuse. However, it did not stop it entirely. When V2 was between the ages of 14 and 16, the offender would continue to touch her when he saw her and to put his hand under her top. This was the subject of count 8, which was a multiple incident count which reflected such conduct having taken place on at least five occasion.[13]The offences against V3 comprised three distinct incidents. The first occurred when V3 was aged between 7 and 9 years. It involved the offender lifting him up in a fireman's lift when they were in the garden. The offender shook V3 until his trousers and underwear came down. The offender then, as V3 put it, "fiddled" with V3's penis (count 9). There was a similar incident around a year later (count 10). The third incident was when V3 was aged 10. It involved the offender cuddling up to him on the sofa, putting his hands into V3's trousers and "fiddling" with his penis (count 11).[14]The offender was first arrested in February 2019. His home address was searched. A laptop and a separate hard drive were seized and analysed. These contained six category C indecent images of children. They appear to have been created by the use of screen-capture software. That was the subject matter of count 12.[15]The offender was interviewed on 12 February 2019. He answered "No comment" to all questions asked of him.[16]A little over a year later, in June 2020, and before he had been charged, the offender suffered a serious and life-changing traffic collision when he had a heart attack at the wheel of his car and his vehicle crashed into an oncoming lorry. The collision led to extensive injuries, including the loss of both of his legs and a significant reduction in the pumping function of his heart.[17]The collision and the resulting injuries meant that there was a considerable pause in the investigation which, in large part, contributed to the delay in the proceedings.[18]The offender was charged on 2 October 2024, some five years after he had originally been arrested.[19]He attended the magistrates' court on 5 and 19 November 2024. On the second of these dates his case was sent to the Crown Court for trial. Through no fault of his, there were further delays before the trial took place. It took place between 27 October and 14 November 2025. Following conviction, the offender was remanded in custody, pending sentence.
Sentencing
[20]The offender was aged 66 at the date of sentence. He had no previous convictions, warnings or reprimands recorded against him.[21]No pre-sentence report was ordered.[22]A neuropsychological report was prepared on the offender, dated 24 February 2025. The primary reason for the report had been to provide an opinion in relation to fitness to plead. The offender was reported to have spoken about the road traffic collision in which he had been involved, and the long-lasting impact that it had had on him. He had suffered three heart attacks. The author of the report had concerns about the offender's ability to instruct his legal advisors owing to memory deficits. He appeared to struggle to recall events that happened many years ago. He was prone to becoming distracted and losing his concentration. The reporting doctor concluded that, pending a psychiatric assessment, the offender was not fit to plead or to stand trial. Accordingly, a psychiatric report was prepared and produced some two months later. The conclusion of that report was that the offender would be fit to plead and to stand trial if adjustments to the trial process were made, including the use of an intermediary.[23]There was available to the judge when sentencing a letter from the offender's GP which set out in some detail the consequences of the collision on his health. It had caused multiple fractures and a brain haemorrhage, which had necessitated multiple surgeries which had involved the amputation of both legs beneath the knee, for which the offender now had prostheses. He suffered bouts of severe phantom pain in those limbs. He had constant pain and poor movement in his right arm as a result of post-traumatic arthritis in his right elbow. He consequently had to use his left arm for all aspects of personal care. Its use for such purposes was also compromised by the fact that he had fixed flexion deformities which affected the ring and little finger of his left hand which hindered his ability to carry out simple movements. He had been left with extensive scar tissue damage to the heart with, as we have said, reduced pumping capacity, which caused shortness of breath and chest pains. He had a high risk of developing heart arrhythmias leading to a risk of cardiac arrest. He had to take blood thinners, which themselves involved a risk of internal bleeding in the event of falls. There was an increased risk of such falls in a prison environment, given his physical disabilities and his heart condition.[24]The offender had written a letter to the judge outlining the extreme difficulties that he was undergoing, having been remanded to HMP Lewes. We do not need to set these out at length, but it is clear that the conditions are ill suited to meeting his care needs and his life was very, very much more difficult than that for other members of the prison population, and fall short of protecting basic human dignity. To give but one example, he had been able to have a shower only once in the two months he had been awaiting sentence. The current position is that he remains in HMP Lewes and he has still not been able to have a further shower in the entire time that he has been there.[25]The offender's younger sister provided a character reference. She spoke of the offender's role as a family man and a dedicated employee. His incarceration was affecting him deeply; it had led to a "complete breakdown of both his physical and mental health". The offender's son described him as being a "most selfless person". He said that he had remained positive since his accident, even though he had spent two years in hospital fighting for his life. But his health and mood had deteriorated dramatically since his remand. The offender's wife also provided a letter to the court. She described him as having been a very caring and loving husband, and as having shown great resilience in fighting for his life and meeting the challenges of rehabilitation following the accident. However, she said, since his remand in HMP Lewes, she had seen him "rapidly decline"; he struggled both physically and mentally. In her view, he seemed to be giving up on the will to live.[26]There were Victim Personal Statements. V1 said that the first incident occurred when she was very young, when she did not know the meaning or the intention of the offender's actions. As she grew older, she started to understand. She thought about what might have happened if she had not reacted in the way that she did and run off. She felt disgusted by the situation and ashamed for not saying more at the time.[27]The impact on V2 was much more severe. V2 said that what had happened affected every part of her life. She had flashbacks to the offences. She found it hard to talk to or engage with men and had a mistrust of men. She had accordingly formed a romantic relationship with a woman – someone she felt she could trust and with whom she could be more open. She recalled a feeling of dread and feeling trapped, knowing what was going to happen and not knowing how to deal with it. Once she had made the disclosure, she said that she had struggled with her mental health and had resorted to self-harming. She had started to see a therapist. She concluded the statement in this way:
"I am doing my best to navigate through life, but I do not believe that [the offender] will ever understand what he took from me, what he has done and the lasting effects it has had on me and my life."
[28]V3 spoke about the effect that the delay in the proceedings had had upon him, and the wider effect of the offender's offending on relationships. He said that he was not sure how the offending would affect him in the future, but as a result of it he was more distrusting of people.[29]Before the sentencing judge, the prosecution categorised the various offences by reference to the guidelines. Counts 1 and 2 were offences to which the current guidelines did not apply, but the equivalent offences would now be charged under sections 11 and 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 respectively. Under the guidelines for those offences, the Crown contended that count 1 was category 2A – category A due to the significant disparity in age, grooming behaviour and abuse of trust. Category 2A has a starting point of two years' imprisonment, and a range of one to three years for a section 11 offence. But it was also noted that the maximum sentence at the time for the offence in fact charged was one of two years' imprisonment.[30]So far as count 2 was concerned, it was contended that under the equivalent modern guideline for section 7, the categorisation was also category 2A – category 2 on account of the touching of naked genitalia, and category A because of the grooming behaviour and abuse of trust.[31]The defence disputed that in relation to V1 there had been any grooming behaviour, and contended that the offence was opportunistic. Nevertheless, it was accepted that the offending fell within category 2A. Category 2A for a section 7 offence has a starting point of four years' imprisonment, and a range of three to seven years.[32]In respect of the section 7 offences committed against V2 (counts 3 to 7), each fell into that same category range as a result of the same factors. It was suggested on behalf of the Crown to the judge when sentencing that for the earliest offence there was extreme youth of the victim, because the victim could be taken to have been 6 years old. That was mistaken. What is extreme has to be judged by reference to the offence in question, which is one that can only be committed against a child under the age of 13. In that context the courts have said that even being as young as 6 does not amount to extreme youth: see R v W [2022] EWCA Crim 1793, where the victim was 5 or 6 years old.[33]It was also said that count 7 could fall within culpability A on account of the additional feature of the offender deliberately isolating the victim. However, that was disputed by the defence; and the judge made no findings about that when sentencing.[34]Count 8 was a section 9 offence. That also was category 2A, for which the guideline gives a starting point of three years' imprisonment, and a range of two to six years.[35]Counts 9 to 11, committed against V3, also fell into category 2A under the section 7 guideline – category 2 as a result of the touching of naked genitalia; category A because of the abuse of trust/grooming (although, again, the defence did not accept that there had been any grooming).[36]The judge's sentencing remarks were relatively brief. He did not detail the abuse committed against each victim or make any detailed findings about it. He did not refer to any of the guidelines. Nor did he identify any of the individual sentences he considered would be appropriate. He did refer to the victim impact and he did refer to the mitigating effect of the offender's good record, his poor health and his prison experiences. He then announced the total sentence of seven years' imprisonment and the individual sentences structured in the way which we have identified.
Submissions
[37]In his measured and helpful submission on behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Holt emphasised that this was multiple offending against young children over a period of some 20 years, with a number of the aggravating factors which we have identified in describing the offending. It therefore required a significant uplift from the notional starting point for a single offence.[38]He fairly accepted that there was significant mitigation available to the offender in the form of the fact that he was a man of 66 years of age who had had led an unblemished life; he had had to wait six years between charge and the conclusion of the proceedings; and he had been left with significant mental and physical injuries as a result of the road traffic collision which occurred during that period. Mr Holt also fairly accepted that the level to be afforded to any reduction for those factors would be a matter within the discretion of the sentencing judge who had had the advantage of having presided over the trial and for that reason would be well placed to assess the offender's various frailties. Mr Holt submitted that, nevertheless, the custodial sentence imposed simply was not sufficient to meet the duration and severity of the offences which had been committed by the offender. By way of illustration only, he suggested that the total sentence imposed of seven years' imprisonment would have been the least which could have been thought appropriate for the offences committed solely against V2. The starting point for a single one of those offences was four years' imprisonment – and there was multiple offending against her alone, such that a sentence at the top of the range of seven years' imprisonment would be the least which could properly have been imposed for that offending alone. A significantly increased sentence, in his submission, was required to take account of the number of offences; of the fact that there were three separate victims; and of the fact that the offending spanned a period of two decades. In those circumstances, Mr Holt submitted that the judge had either applied a reduction for mitigation which was vastly excessive in all the circumstances, or at any rate had failed to impose a sentence which reflected the seriousness of all the offending.[39]On behalf of the offender, in attractive submissions Miss Saimbhi argued that the judge, having heard the trial, was well placed to judge both the nature and the seriousness of the offending, and was much better placed that this court in light of the fact that he said very little about it in the course of his sentencing remarks. The judge was also, as she submitted, and as Mr Holt accepted, very well placed to assess the personal circumstances of the offender, his poor health, his age, and his extreme vulnerability. The judge had been able to observe, for example, how exhausted the offender was, both mentally and physically, at the end of each day, and the difficulties that he had had in following proceedings. Miss Saimbhi emphasised that the circumstances in which the offender had found himself in HMP Lewes, even at the time of the sentencing by the judge, involved a level of indignity which was "entirely unacceptable". Since then he has remained in HMP Lewes. We have received further material which shows that his care needs have not properly been catered for. Miss Saimbhi also gave us some further information as to his current circumstances which, without going into the detail, mean that the position he has been in has been, if anything, worse than that which existed at the time of his sentencing.
Conclusion
[40]This was serious offending. It involved three victims and multiple offences carried out over a long period of time. V1 was very young when it started. It was undoubtedly serious offending, as Mr Holt submits, notwithstanding that it did not involve any penetrative activity. The appropriate sentence for all of the offending had to take account of totality and of the available mitigation. That was of course an evaluative exercise which the trial judge was well placed to undertake after presiding over a three week trial.[41]The judge could properly take the view that the offender's physical and mental difficulties would make prison – and were making prison – very significantly more onerous for the offender than for others and to treat that as a significant mitigating feature which needed to be added to the mitigating factors of good character and delay. As we have mentioned, material supplied to this court in relation to what has happened since sentence was passed would reinforce such a conclusion.[42]It seems to us that the length of sentence which was passed in this case did involve a degree of mercy. It was, as Miss Saimbhi put it, "compassionate". She accepted that the sentence might be regarded as towards the lower end of the range available to the judge. We would agree with that assessment.[43]Nevertheless, we do not consider that the sentence imposed was below the range which was reasonably available to the judge, and it was therefore not unduly lenient.[44]We grant leave, but decline to interfere with the sentence. _________________________ 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 ______________________________