header-logo header-logo

Sentencing guidelines for arranging & facilitating

18 May 2022
Issue: 7979 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
The Sentencing Council has revised its guidelines on sentencing offenders convicted of arranging or facilitating sexual offences against a child, and issued a new guideline on sexual communication with a child

Current guidelines, published in 2013, have been interpreted in cases where sexual activity was incited but did not actually occur to mean that harm should be considered low or the absence of actual harm to a child should be considered a mitigating factor.

Under the revised guidelines, which come into effect on 31 May, however, judges and magistrates will look at the intended sexual harm, regardless of whether the activity takes place, for example, in a police ‘sting’ operation. The maximum penalties are life imprisonment for arranging or facilitating if the rape of a child under 12 years old is planned, and 14 years’ imprisonment for causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal requested the revisions following Privett & Ors [2020] EWCA Crim 557, in which an offence was arranged and facilitated but there was no child, and Reed & Ors [2021] EWCA Crim 572, in which sexual activity was incited but did not take place.

Sentencing Council member, Judge Rosa Dean, said: ‘Judges and magistrates will impose sentences that reflect the intended harm to the child, even where that activity does not ultimately take place, to protect children from people planning to cause them sexual harm.’

Under the new guideline for the offence of sexual communication with a child, offenders face a maximum penalty of two years in prison for sharing images, causing psychological harm, abuse of trust or the use of threats or bribes. This takes effect on 1 July 2022.

The Council also clarified that offences against victims overseas should be treated as seriously as offending against victims in England and Wales.
Issue: 7979 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll