Craig Bradley [2019] EWCA Crim 1426

R v Craig Bradley [2019] EWCA Crim 1426 concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following the applicant’s conviction for two offences of attempted kidnap. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the application.

Mr Bradley was convicted after trial of two offences of attempted kidnap. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of six years, comprising a custodial term of four years and six months and an extended licence period of eighteen months. Leave to appeal was refused by the single judge and Mr Bradley renewed his application.

On 23 November 2017 at approximately 4.15 p.m., an 11-year-old girl and her friend were walking home from school when they noticed a blue car driving slowly past. Fifteen minutes later the same car approached them. The applicant, who was driving, asked the girls for directions to a supermarket before driving off. Approximately fifteen minutes later, by which time darkness was beginning to fall, the two girls had parted company and the first girl was walking home alone when she heard a car behind her. It was the applicant’s blue car. He pulled over, got out of the vehicle and asked the girl to come to him. He then opened the boot and began to rummage around, claiming he had a map inside. The girl was suspicious because she had noticed the car had a satellite navigation system. Being very close to her home, she managed to walk quickly down the path and knocked loudly on her front door. The applicant followed her down the path and when her mother answered he asked for directions to an Asda supermarket before leaving. A few minutes later a 12-year-old girl was walking home from a friend’s house when the applicant pulled over in his car and said “Hi, can you help me?” She replied “No, thank you” and carried on walking. The applicant drove slowly alongside her, then got out of the car and grabbed her upper right arm, pulling her towards him. She managed to break free and ran away. She laid down behind a garden wall to hide from him. A little time later she telephoned her mother in hysterics and remained on the telephone until she reached home. Shortly thereafter the girl noticed the applicant’s car still in the area but on wasteland opposite her home. She told her mother who ran outside but the applicant drove away. Another family member managed to note the vehicle’s registration number. The registration matched a car belonging to the applicant. Police officers searched his home and found a jacket matching the description given by the first girl. After arrest the applicant was interviewed and admitted having driven around the area but denied being at the locations described by the victims. He denied both offences and was subsequently convicted at trial.

The applicant was 39 years old. He had three convictions for four offences spanning 1998 to 2016. There was one relevant conviction for sexual assault in 2006 for which he received eighteen months’ imprisonment. That offence had been committed against an adult female with whom he had been in a relationship. A pre-sentence report made clear he maintained his denial of any sexual motive. He was assessed as a low risk of reoffending generally, but by the Risk Matrix 2000 analysis he was considered a high risk of future sexual offences. The probation officer suggested he presented a high risk of serious harm, particularly to women and children. A psychological report assessed that his IQ score was within the range designated as having learning difficulties, although lower than the psychologist would have expected from his presentation in interview. In any event the report concluded his intellectual level was not a consideration with respect to these offences.

In sentencing, the judge observed these were two separate offences of attempting to kidnap two young girls on the same day. CCTV footage showed that darkness was beginning to fall. The applicant was not a qualified driver and was therefore required to have a qualified driver in the car with him, but that day he had deliberately chosen to drive around alone in order to approach young girls. He had been persistent in his actions. This was determined and pre-thought-out behaviour. The judge concluded there could be only one explanation behind that behaviour, namely that he committed the offences with a view to committing sexual offences against the children. The judge found the applicant was living an isolated and lonely life and had been misusing drugs and alcohol according to the pre-sentence report. The offences were both serious specified offences. The court concluded he posed a significant risk of causing serious harm to others. The court determined that each offence would merit a custodial term of four years and that an extended sentence was necessary.

The grounds of appeal advanced two arguments. First, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive for attempted kidnapping with little force being used. Second, the finding of dangerousness and the consequential imposition of an extended sentence was wrong in principle.

The single judge had concluded that the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the motive in attempting to kidnap the young girls was sexual and that he was right to consider the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for sexual offences. While not the offence charged, the guideline for an offence contrary to section 62 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence, was helpful. It indicated that the sentence for a section 62 offence should be commensurate with that for the preliminary offence actually committed, but with an enhancement to reflect the intention to commit a sexual offence. The preliminary offence here was attempted kidnap, not simply common assault, and a more significant enhancement would appear to be warranted in the case of an intention to commit sexual offences upon girls under the age of thirteen. The single judge referenced the relevant starting points for sexual offending against an abducted girl under thirteen: for Category 2A rape thirteen years, for Category 2A assault by penetration eleven years and for Category 1A sexual assault six years. Taking into account the fact that these were attempts with no sexual offence in fact committed, a lesser sentence was warranted. However, the judge was right to take a very serious view of this offending and a sentence of four years and six months after trial was fully justified. While neither child was in fact kidnapped and no significant force used, it was a serious aggravating feature that the applicant was intent on kidnapping children in order to commit sexual offences. The judge was clearly entitled to take the view that he posed a significant risk of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified sexual offences against young girls. Accordingly, upon finding that the custodial element of the sentence would be at least four years, he was entitled to pass an extended sentence in the way that he did.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the views expressed by the single judge. In short, the sentencing judge was entitled to find a sexual motive, to impose a sentence of four years and six months, and to pass an extended sentence, and the application was refused.