R v John Peter Hopper [2026] EWCA Crim 801

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 GREAT GRIMSBY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE GURDIAL SINGH) [16XK0482625]
Case No 2025/03032/A3 Wednesday 10 June 2026
Neutral Citation No [2026] EWCA Crim 801
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE FIELD KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
- v –
Between
JOHN PETER HOPPER____________________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)___________________Non Counsel Application___________________J U D G M E N TDate 2026-06-10
[1]Reporting restrictions apply in this case. No matter relating to the victim shall during her lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify her as the victim of these offences. We have not named her in this judgment.[2]This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, leave having been refused by the single judge.[3]On 12 May 2025, in the Crown Court at Great Grimsby, the applicant pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a child (counts 3, 4 and 5) and one offence of possession of indecent photographs of a child (count 8). He did so on the written basis that sexual contact with the victim was consensual.[4]On 4 August 2025, he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on count 3 (sexual activity with a child), four years' imprisonment for a like offence on each of counts 4 and 5, and four weeks' imprisonment on count 8 (possession of indecent photographs). All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence was therefore one of six years' imprisonment. Ancillary orders were made.[5]We need not set out the facts of the case in any detail. Suffice it to say that at the time of the offences the victim was 15 years of age. The applicant was then aged 32 years. The offences occurred at the applicant's home address. The victim was initially there on 17 February 2025, because she had argued with her mother and it was suggested by a friend that she could stay with the applicant. He said that she could have his bed and that he would sleep on a couch in the bedroom. However, sexual intercourse took place between them. The police arrived, removed the victim from the house and took her home. This was the incident reflected in count 3 of the indictment.[6]Following a further argument with her parents, the victim went again to the applicant's house on 5 March 2025. She stayed there for one night during which sexual intercourse again took place (count 4).[7]Count 5 related to another act of sexual intercourse which took place on 9 March 2025. The victim had again gone missing from home. The applicant called her and asked her to go to his address, which she agreed to do. The police found the victim in a shop the next morning, where she disclosed what had happened.[8]The applicant was arrested. His phone was seized and examined. Three indecent photographs of the victim were found upon it.[9]Although he had a conviction for two offences in 2012, the applicant was sentenced as a man of good character.[10]In a pre-sentence report, the applicant said that he did not find the victim sexually attractive and had been blackmailed by her into having sexual intercourse with him. He repeatedly sought to portray himself as the victim. The applicant was described in a psychological report as having a low IQ and suffering from a learning disability. Although acknowledging that this would impact on his thinking and problem-solving skills, the author of the pre-sentence report noted that the applicant knew that the victim was a child and had a basic understanding of the concept of consent. She considered that he posed a high risk of serious harm to children.[11]The psychological report was prepared to assist the court with the applicant's needs in the event of a trial It did not specifically address sentence. The author said that the applicant struggled with verbal comprehension and that his understanding of the case and conversations with professionals may be limited at times. He exhibited overall learning difficulties and had an overall learning disability. His difficulties significantly impacted his ability to interpret social cues navigated to personal interactions and make considered choices.[12]In sentencing the applicant, the judge found his persistence and further offending after the police had been to his flat to be an aggravating factor. The judge placed the offences of sexual activity with a child into category 1A of the relevant sentencing guideline. They fell within culpability A by reason of the vulnerability of the victim, the significant disparity in age and, said the judge, it was an abuse of trust.[13]The offences fell within harm category 1 by reason of the penetrative activity. This afforded a starting point of five years' imprisonment for a single offence, with a range of four to ten years.[14]The judge took account of the applicant's learning disability and issues set out in the psychological report, and reduced the notional sentence to four years by reason of them. He observed, however, that there was no connection between the applicant's difficulties and his culpability. He knew that the victim was a child who had come to his home seeking refuge and he took advantage of her. He knew what he was doing.[15]The judge took count 3 as the lead offence and increased the sentence on that count to reflect the entirety of the applicant's offending behaviour. He reached a notional sentence after trial of eight years' imprisonment. Affording 25 per cent credit for the applicant’s guilty pleas, he came to the sentence imposed.[16]The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the notional sentence after trial was too high; that the judge erred in finding that the applicant's learning disability did not reduce his culpability; and that the applicant's diagnosis of a global learning disability was not properly reflected in the overall sentence.[17]In support of those submissions, it is said that the applicant's difficulties in interpreting social cues and navigating interpersonal interactions impacted on his ability to understand the intentions of the victim when she attended at his property. It is submitted that he would have had difficulties in understanding the victim's emotions and that she was a vulnerable child.[18]In refusing leave to appeal against sentence, the single

judge said:

"Each of the three sexual activity with a child counts was category 1A with a starting point of five years and a range of four to ten years. The judge took account of the applicant's learning difficulties in mitigation, reducing the sentence from the five year starting point to four years before consideration of plea and totality. The judge imposed concurrent sentences, so a substantial uplift was required for totality. The resulting notional sentence following trial is well within the category range for a single offence. An appropriate reduction was made for the plea. It is not arguable that the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle."
[19]We have considered the matter afresh and find ourselves in complete agreement with the single judge for the reasons he gave.[20]We add that there is no evidence for the connections which the applicant sought to draw in his proposed grounds of appeal between his learning disability and his offending. The guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments makes clear that a reduction in culpability should only be made if there is sufficient connection between the offender's impairment and the offending behaviour.[21]This is not a case where the perception of the applicant depended on nuanced social cues. It is difficult to see that the applicant was unaware of the seriousness of his actions when the police had come to his house and removed the victim. He knew that she was a child; he knew that what he was doing was wrong.[22]We are therefore unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was arguably manifestly excessive. We accordingly refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against 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 ______________________________