Harris [2018] EWCA Crim 2002; [2019] 1 Cr.App.R.(S). 18, CA.

R v Harris [2018] EWCA Crim 2002 concerned an appeal against an immediate custodial sentence imposed on a former police officer for misconduct in public office and child sexual abuse image offences.

On 5 January 2018 in the Crown Court at Lewes Mr Harris pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office, possession of indecent photographs of a child, and making indecent photographs of a child. On 16 March 2018 Her Honour Judge Henson QC sentenced him to two years’ immediate imprisonment on the misconduct count and concurrent terms of one month and two months’ imprisonment on the other counts respectively. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order and Restraining Order were also made. The appeal was brought with leave of the single judge.

Mr Harris had joined Sussex Police in 2002 and in 2014 or 2015 became a Sexual Offences Liaison Officer, a specialist role for which he had applied. Such officers are trained to deal with first complaints from victims of serious sexual assaults. By 2017 he was based at Brighton Police Station within the Safeguarding and Investigation Unit dealing with vulnerable victims of domestic assault and serious sexual offences.

On 2 April 2017 a woman reported that she had been raped. The following day Mr Harris, acting in his official capacity, took her and her mother to a Sexual Assault Referral Centre and returned them home that evening. He became the contact point with the woman on behalf of the police. She had provided her Facebook password to an investigating officer. Mr Harris obtained that password without her permission and used it to access her account. He downloaded images of her, saving seven images including a photograph of her taken aged 13 in school uniform. On 4 April 2017 he emailed these images from his police account to his personal hotmail account. He later said that he had saved images of her in school uniform because he found her attractive.

Following her return home from the Sexual Assault Referral Centre, the woman received notification at around midnight that someone was attempting to access her email account. Fearing it was the rape suspect, she notified Mr Harris, who informed her that the police had accessed the account for investigative purposes. In interview for the pre-sentence report Mr Harris accepted that it was he who had sought to access the email account whilst the woman was being assessed at the centre.

When the woman later learned that Mr Harris had personal images of her, she described the complete breach of the trust she had placed in him. In police interview Mr Harris admitted that he had accessed pages of other victims who had come to him and had also saved their images. He was dismissed from the Police Force in January 2018.

In grounds of appeal composed by Mr Harris himself, he had initially referred to a number of authorities in which lower sentences had been imposed on different facts. With the benefit of representation by Miss Abigail Bright of counsel, he no longer relied on comparisons with other authorities. Instead the focus of the appeal was on the disproportionality of sentence. Miss Bright submitted that the type of sentence passed was wrong in principle, that in particular an immediate custodial sentence was wrong, that a sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment was disproportionate, and that the sentence called for correction.

Miss Bright’s submissions focused on Mr Harris’s long career since 2002, during which he had performed his daily duties as a police officer and been tested for his skills and expertise on many occasions. His fall from grace had occurred in 2017 after a commendable track record. She submitted that significantly greater recognition should have been given by the learned judge to the personal consequences Mr Harris had already experienced following his admission of misconduct. He had lost his vocational occupation and his reputation. She referred to disciplinary sanction by way of regulatory censure and drew attention to the loss of relationships, both marital and family. Mr Harris had served some time in prison. There was remorse, and a degree of candour could be seen from his admission that he had accessed the pages of other victims.

The question of suspending the sentence of imprisonment was raised by both Mr Harris and by Miss Bright on his behalf. Mr Harris had criticised some of the things said by the author of the pre-sentence report and had pointed to his willingness to engage with the issues behind his offending. Miss Bright added that there was an opportunity he earnestly wished to take for himself and his family, despite the past breakdown, to reconcile and to move on. Mr Harris added that he could no longer misconduct himself in public office because he had been removed from the Police Force. He and Miss Bright pointed to the restrictions that both the Register of Sex Offenders and the Sexual Harm Prevention Order would have on his conduct and would thereby offer protection to the public.

The Court of Appeal rejected these submissions. Mr Justice Robin Knowles, giving the judgment of the court, held that the appellant’s offending was so serious that only a sentence of immediate imprisonment was appropriate. He was in a public office which carried a great responsibility to those who were particularly vulnerable. The standard of trust expected of him was shown by the provision to him of the password. He abused that trust by his use of that password for his personal sexual gratification. Although the court recognised that the episode with the woman was limited, Mr Harris had mentioned other episodes in interview.

The court emphasised that the wider consequences for the public interest were large. The fact that a single police officer was prepared to abuse his position in this way risked the loss of confidence by other vulnerable people to work with the police. This could not be more serious where the areas of investigation related to domestic assaults and serious sexual offences. The offence of misconduct in public office was planned, manipulative and serious. It undermined the confidence of those who trust the police to protect them and also invaded their privacy at a time of great vulnerability. The court found that deterrent sentences were to be expected for such offending.

The court held that a sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment, after a reduction of 25 per cent for a plea of guilty, was well within the range of sentences properly open to the sentencing judge. The judge would also have had regard to the fact that she was passing concurrent sentences for the counts concerning the possession and making of indecent photographs of a child. The court concluded that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. In short, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, the Court of Appeal finding that the sentencing judge had been fully justified in imposing immediate custody given the serious breach of trust involved in the misconduct by a specialist officer dealing with vulnerable victims.