Freya Squires [2019] EWCA Crim 1167

Freya Squires [2019] EWCA Crim 1167 concerns an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Simon, Mr Justice Picken and Mr Justice Swift) granted leave and increased the sentence imposed for multiple sexual offences committed by a teaching assistant against a pupil.

Miss Squires, aged forty-seven at appeal, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Lewes on 12 April 2019 to six counts of sexual activity with a child under sixteen, contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and one count of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust, contrary to section 16(1) of the 2003 Act. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest being forty months on counts three and four, making a total term of forty months’ imprisonment. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order under section 103 of the 2003 Act and a Restraining Order under section 5 of the Harassment Act 1996 were also made.

Miss Squires was openly gay and worked as a teaching assistant at the Tideway School in Newhaven. In late 2007 or early 2008, when aged thirty-five, she befriended the victim, C, who was then thirteen. C had a troubled home life. Her father had died when she was three and her mother had been diagnosed with cancer. Her older siblings no longer lived at home and she had no one in whom to confide. The offender was popular with the children and the victim liked her. They became close and began walking home from school together. C began attending the offender’s gym after school and joined the school band in which the offender played. They exchanged telephone numbers and sent text messages. C discussed with the offender her confusion about her sexuality and told her that she felt attracted to her.

On 2 February 2009, when the school was closed due to snow, the offender sent a text inviting C to her flat. As they sat on the sofa, the offender climbed on C, straddling her. C said no and the offender got off. She subsequently kissed C in the hallway as she was leaving. C was fourteen. This formed count one. Thereafter, their telephone contact increased and the calls became sexual in nature. They began to have oral sex in the toilets at the gym, where the offender would penetrate C’s vagina with her tongue and they would kiss. C described this as happening nearly every day after school. Count two charged a single occasion and count three at least ten occasions.

At about this time, C’s mother became concerned about her daughter’s withdrawn behaviour and the fact that she spoke frequently and inappropriately about the offender. She spoke to C and informed the school. As a result, the offender was spoken to by the school student support co-ordinator, who told her that C was seeking special attention from her and advised her not to put herself in a vulnerable position. The offender was removed from C’s classes and C was offered counselling, which began in May 2009. C did not disclose the relationship at that stage. The offender told her not to.

Although their meetings became less frequent, they continued to see each other. The offender was worried about meeting at the gym, so they went to the public toilets at Seaford beach, where the offender performed oral sex on C and they kissed. Count four specified at least two occasions.

During the summer of 2009, when C was fifteen, her mother took her to Australia, hoping to improve her behaviour. C remained in telephone contact with the offender and sexual activity resumed on her return. Thereafter, they spent each weekend together. C would lie to her mother, saying she was staying at a friend’s house. Instead, disguised in a wig and a big, baggy coat, she went to the offender’s flat. There they engaged in sexual activity involving digital penetration of C’s vagina, oral sex, rubbing their vaginas together (scissoring) and kissing, while both were naked. This continued until C was about seventeen. Count five specified a single occasion and count six at least twenty occasions. C turned sixteen in May 2010 but remained at school until June. During this period sexual contact continued, forming count seven. After leaving school, C began to go out with boys and ended the relationship when she was about seventeen.

C subsequently told a boyfriend what had happened and in 2014, when pregnant, disclosed to her health visitor that she had been in a relationship with a teaching assistant. She was advised to call the police but did not wish to. When a police officer visited her home, she was scared and told him nothing sexual had happened. She was anxious and did not want her mother to know. In 2017, however, she discovered that her niece attended the same school, now called Seahaven Academy, and decided to report the matter to protect her. She made a complaint to the police. The offender was suspended and ultimately dismissed.

On 12 December 2017, Miss Squires voluntarily attended Eastbourne Police Station for interview. She admitted that she had been in a sexual relationship with C when C was fourteen or fifteen. She accepted that she had abused her role as a teaching assistant. She said she had been depressed and lonely, and had been flattered by C’s attention. She said C had come to her flat once when it was snowing and they had kissed. A few months later, they had sex involving kissing, cuddling, touching, oral sex and scissoring. She denied that it involved digital penetration until after C left school. She said their relationship did not finally end until C was eighteen. She accepted that she had been advised by the school not to go to the gym with C and had ignored that advice because it felt like they were in a relationship. She said she had loved C but knew what she had done was wrong and hated herself for it. She said she wanted to be honest because she did not want to put the victim through anything else.

In her Victim Personal Statement, C said she suffered from trust issues and self-doubt. She said when she was fourteen, she thought she was more mature than she was. She now realised she was emotionally vulnerable and lonely. The offender was friendly and seemed to take an interest in her. During the relationship, she felt that the offender had looked after her. She said it was not a horrible relationship and the offender never abused her in the sense of forcing her to do anything. Looking back, she thought the offender had been struggling with depression. However, while the relationship continued, she had lied to her family, which made her feel bad, and she had distanced herself from friends. She did not feel as if she could confide in anyone. She had felt pressurised not to tell anyone because the consequences would be serious. Looking back, she realised the offender had emotionally manipulated her.

Miss Squires had no previous convictions or cautions and was of good character. She was highly regarded as a teaching assistant and youth worker. She was genuinely remorseful and ashamed. A pre-sentence report described how she explained that the offences were committed shortly after she had come out of a long-term relationship. The report suggested she was motivated by feelings of rejection and loneliness, and her actions were impulsive rather than planned. Believing herself to be in love with C, she had developed a distorted view that the victim was a willing, consensual participant, and failed to recognise her vulnerabilities. The offender described a difficult childhood and problematic drinking, as well as depression. She had received counselling and completed some online work regarding sexual offending. She was assessed as a low or very low risk of re-offending and a medium risk of causing serious harm, the nature of the risk being sexual and psychological abuse of children, which would be reduced if she were prohibited from working with or having access to them. The report recommended a community order, though the senior probation officer at court did not support such a proposal.

Miss Heer, for the Solicitor General, submitted that the offending fell within category 1A of the Sentencing Council definitive guideline for offences under section 9 of the 2003 Act. Category 1 harm was established by penetration of the victim’s vagina. Category A culpability was established by the abuse of trust (the offender was employed as a teaching assistant at the victim’s school), significant planning, steps taken to conceal the offending behaviour, and a significant disparity of age (the offender was about twenty-two years older than the victim). The Solicitor General identified further aggravating factors: the number of offences and the period over which they were committed (the indictment included multiple-incident counts, resulting in a total of thirty-six offences over eighteen months); the fact that the offender continued to offend despite receiving a warning from the school; and that she told the victim of the serious consequences if the offending were discovered, which prevented the victim from reporting it. The Solicitor General acknowledged the mitigating features: no previous convictions and positive good character, though it was this good character that facilitated the offending; admission of the offences in interview and an indication of willingness to plead guilty at the first opportunity; and evidence of genuine remorse.

Mr Cherrill, for the offender, submitted that although the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly lenient in the light of many factors, including those recognised by the Solicitor General. He submitted that the judge was in the best position to assess the powerful mitigation and balance it against the aggravating features. The mitigation included the offender’s deep and genuine remorse, her immediate admission in interview and her plea of guilty at the first opportunity, her good character and the many testimonials, including from Lisa Glanville, who had given evidence, which spoke not only of the offender’s good qualities but also of her shame. Although Mr Cherrill acknowledged that this was a criminal relationship, he submitted that it was a loving relationship in which no force was used. The offender had lost her job, which she loved, as well as her accommodation, and she suffered from depression. The probation officer’s view was that she presented a low risk of re-offending. He submitted that the offender accepted full responsibility and had paid an enormous penalty for her first offending. The judge was satisfied that there would be no repetition. In the circumstances, he submitted that mercy was appropriate.

The sentencing judge did not doubt that the offender had been a fine member of the teaching profession and noted that there were many people supporting her. However, she also noted that the offender had engaged in a long-term relationship with a child aged fourteen and fifteen, a child who was vulnerable because of her personal circumstances, sexually inexperienced, and who had talked about her vulnerability and confusion. It was the offender’s professional duty to step back and not engage in an unlawful sexual relationship, a relationship that was manipulative and deceitful because, while acting as a teaching assistant, the offender was indulging her own needs by having sexual activity with a child in the school toilets. The judge identified the offending as falling within category 1A of the guidelines, with a starting point of five years and a category range of four to ten years. The judge acknowledged that the starting point had to reflect the fact that the offending was repeated over such a long period of time, but then took a starting point of sixty months, which, with full credit for the guilty plea, she reduced to forty months.

The Court of Appeal held that the starting point was too low. Lord Justice Simon emphasised the extent of the offending, reflected by multiple-incident counts over a period of eighteen months; the further offences committed after the offender had received a warning from the school; and the offender telling the victim of the serious consequences if the offending were discovered. The court accepted that the offender’s remorse and good character were matters to be taken into account in her favour, although it was her good character that enabled her to carry out the offences as a school assistant. However, even taking these matters into account, the court held that the starting point should not have been less than seven years. The offending took place over eighteen months, on numerous occasions. There were a number of culpability factors which made the offending more serious. In addition, the offender could and should have stopped when spoken to, and she warned the victim of the serious consequences of reporting the offending. The court was not impressed by Mr Cherrill’s argument that the offending could have been worse. No doubt it could, but it was serious criminality over a long time. With full discount for the prompt guilty plea, the sentence should have been fifty-six months’ imprisonment.

In short, the court granted leave, quashed the sentences of forty months’ imprisonment on counts three and four and substituted concurrent terms of fifty-six months’ imprisonment, making a total sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment.