header-logo header-logo

18 May 2022
Issue: 7979 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Sentencing guidelines for arranging & facilitating

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll