R v Nathan Woods-Springer

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall, during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of that Act.

The complainants 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "C1", "C2" and "C3") were aged between 3 and 5 when they were under the foster care of the applicant and his then wife. C2 and his twin sister C3 were removed from the care of the applicant in January 2023 due to allegations of non-sexual physical abuse by the applicant. They went to live with new foster parents. On 28 April 2023, the twins' new foster father collected them from school. As he was driving them home C3 disclosed that the applicant had "put his tail" in C2's mouth, "sucked her foo" and "put his finger up her bottom". C2 also said that the applicant had "put his tail in his mouth" and that he had also made C3 sick. The foster father got home, told his wife and alerted social care and the police. The twins' foster mother had a further discussion with the children who confirmed that the applicant had sexually assaulted them.

The applicant was arrested on 4 May 2023 and interviewed. He denied any sexual misconduct, claimed that the children had exhibited sexualised behaviour due to earlier abuse and offered the opinion that the social workers in charge had not done their jobs properly. Mobile phones and other media were seized from him. The devices revealed numerous indecent images of children and images of the applicant sexually abusing all three children. There were four separate images of the applicant orally raping C2. There were two separate images of the applicant orally raping C3, including one where it was clear that C3 had recently vomited on the carpet. There were two images where the applicant digitally penetrated C3’s anus and another image where he had placed his erect penis on her vagina. There were four separate images of the applicant orally raping C1, one of which showed that C2 was also present. There were two separate instances of the applicant placing his erect penis on C1's bottom, one with his finger inside his anus and another where he was pulling or stretching C1's penis towards himself.

The applicant was interviewed again on 17 July 2023, when he made frank admissions and added substantially more detail than had been revealed by C2 and C3. The applicant accepted that he had orally raped all three children multiple times and that he had ejaculated in C1's and C2's mouths. He agreed that he had orally raped C3 causing her to vomit and then put his penis back in her mouth immediately afterwards. He described how he would hold the children's heads and thrust his penis into their mouths. He admitted that he had recorded both moving and still images of him abusing all three children. He stated that he had not abused any other children. The applicant possessed or downloaded over 600 indecent images of children, of which 220 were category A images showing the penetrative abuse of children, 152 of the images he had taken of C1, C2 and C3 were at category A.

The applicant was interviewed again on 14 December 2023. He admitted that he had set his mobile phone camera up on two occasions to record his niece, complainant 4 (referred to as "C4") as she changed before and after a shower. The applicant's phone revealed 68 category C images of C4. The applicant admitted that he had also offended against complainant 5 (referred to as "C5"), a female child, in 2019. The applicant stated that he had touched C5's vagina with his hand and also placed his penis on her naked vagina but denied any penetrative offence. He further admitted taking both video and still images of this offending. The applicant then went on to admit the oral rape of complainant 6 (referred to as "C6") in very similar terms to that of C1, C2 and C3. He again stated that he had recorded this on his phone. He thought he had done this on three or four occasions but denied ejaculating.

The procedural history was relatively complicated but need not detain us for present purposes. Suffice it to say that the applicant pleaded guilty at various stages to a large number of offences. To some he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court at York and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court. In other cases he pleaded guilty to counts at the Crown Court of York.

The sentencing hearing took place on 28 June 2024 in the Crown Court at York. The applicant was sentenced by HHJ Morris in the following way. On what we will call the first indictment which has the number 12NY0978023, count 1 was an offence of rape of a child under the age of 13, contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The sentence was an extended determinate sentence of 36 years comprising a custodial term of 30 years and an extended licence period of 6 years. This, as will become apparent, was made the lead count by the sentencing judge and all other sentences were made concurrent.

On counts 2, 6, 8 and 9, on the first indictment, offences of rape of a child under the age of 13, the judge imposed a special custodial sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (or the Sentencing Code) of 11 years. On counts 3, 7 and 10, which were offences of assault of a child under the age of 13 by penetration, contrary to section 6(1) of the 2003 Act, the judge imposed a special custodial sentence of 8 years. On counts 4, 5 and 11, sexual assault of a child under 13, contrary to section 7(1) of the 2003 Act, the judge imposed a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment. On count 12 also the same sentence was imposed. On count 13, which was an offence of making indecent photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, the sentence was 6 months' imprisonment. On count 14, making indecent photographs of children, there was a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment. On count 15, which was the same kind of offence, there was no separate penalty. On count 16, an offence of taking indecent photographs of children contrary to the same provision, there was a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment. On count 17, taking indecent photographs of children, there was a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. On count 18, a similar offence, there was a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.

On the second indictment which has the number 12NY2012923, count 1 was an offence of rape of a child under the age of 13. The judge imposed a special custodial sentence of 11 years. Then there were the matters for which the applicant had been committed for sentence. On count 2, an offence of voyeurism, contrary to section 67(3) of the 2003 Act, there was a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment. On counts 3 and 4, which were offences of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13, there were sentences of 28 months' imprisonment. Finally on count 5, making indecent photographs of children, there was a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. Accordingly, as we have said, the total sentence was an extended determinate sentence pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Code, comprising a custodial term of 30 years and an extended licence period of 6 years. A statutory surcharge was imposed. A sexual harm prevention order was imposed to last until further order. An order was made for the forfeiture or destruction of all media devices seized. Since the applicant had been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he was required to comply to the notification to the police provisions of Part 2 indefinitely, and since he had been convicted of an offence specified in the schedule to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Prescribed Criteria and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2009, the applicant will or may be included in the relevant list by the disclosure and barring service.

The present application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the Full Court by the Single Judge.

The applicant had no previous convictions. The sentencing court, like this court, had victim personal statements from the victims' foster carers and from C4. There was a Note for Sentence prepared on behalf of the defence. The judge also had two reports before him. There was a pre-sentence report dated 7 May 2024. This assessed the applicant as posing a high risk of serious harm towards children and said that in the absence of external controls the likelihood of further sexual offending should be considered to be high (see sections 4 and 5 of the report). The judge also had a psychiatric report by Dr Surj Shenoy dated 30 October 2023. The author was of the opinion that the applicant suffered with some depressive symptoms. There was a clinical diagnosis of mild depression but the symptoms were not severe enough to require treatment currently. There was no history of him suffering with any symptoms of any mental disorder. The author was of the opinion that there are no psychiatric matters which are contributed to the offending. He also expressed a view that the factors in favour of finding dangerousness outweighed those against (see section 6 of the report).

When passing sentence on 28 June 2024, the judge said that the applicant had committed "… the most unforgivable and shocking catalogue of sexual depravities against extremely young children who were highly vulnerable, both male and female." He had been a foster carer. The judge referred to what had happened as "a campaign of rape and sexual abuse aimed at little girls and little boys". The judge had considered imposing a life sentence but stepped back from doing so, in particular because it is extremely rare to see anyone making admissions and extremely rare to see those guilty pleas across the board as this applicant had entered. The judge said that he would make the offence of rape on count 1 on the first indictment the lead offence and make all the other sentences concurrent and that he would take into account the principle of totality. The judge then set out in some detail what the notional sentence after trial would have been on each count, what the reduction for plea was and also the reduction to take account of totality and prison conditions. It is unnecessary for present purposes to rehearse those matters in detail here. What we do need to record here is that the judge imposed sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Code, that is a sentence for an offender of particular concern in relation to a number of counts, as we have outlined earlier.

As will become apparent it is now accepted that those sentences were unlawful and require correction. On the lead offence the judge imposed a 36-year extended sentence, comprising a custodial term of 30 years and an extension period of 6 years. After discussion between the prosecution and the defence the case was re-listed before the judge on 12 July 2024, so that clarification could be given about how the judge had arrived at his overall sentence. On that occasion the judge said that the rapes in this case were committed against four individual victims and that ordinarily would carry consecutive sentences. He had given credit for pleas and prison conditions and totality so that each of those sentences would be reduced to 10 years, save for the lead count which he reserved as the sentence to reflect overall criminality. The judge said that if he had passed 10 years and made all the sentences consecutive the sentence would have been one of 40 years' imprisonment on the rapes alone. The sentence on the lead count was therefore intended to reflect the overall criminality of the appellant. He set out the sentences which he would have passed individually on all the other counts so that people would have known the sort of figure that would have been passed in each individual case, if they had stood alone. The figure that he had passed on the lead count was intended to reflect the overall criminality of the applicant and is less than what would have been the sum total if he had passed consecutive sentences throughout.

Before we turn to the grounds of appeal, we should address an issue which was raised by the Registrar as to the structure of the sentences imposed below. As we have mentioned, the judge imposed a number of concurrent sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Code, that is special custodial sentences for certain offenders of particular concern, the successor provision to section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In R v Powell [2018] EWCA Crim 1074; [2018] 2 Cr App R(S) 34, this Court held that in a case of multiple offending, where the court has imposed extended sentences, the sentencing court is precluded from imposing a special sentence in respect of other counts for associated offences (see paragraphs 5 to 6 in the judgment of the Court given by Jeremy Baker J, citing the earlier decision of this Court in R v F [2016] EWCA Crim 561 at [27]).

In the present case the Registrar drew this to the attention of counsel who are agreed that the sentences imposed by the judge on certain counts are accordingly unlawful and need to be corrected by this Court. Having considered both the written submissions from Mr Russell, who has appeared on behalf of the Crown to assist the Crown and the oral submissions of Mr Parsons, who essentially agrees with those submissions, the matter can be rectified by substituting for the unlawful sentences the sentence which the judge clearly intended to impose underlying each sentence by a determinate sentence and excising the additional licence period which the judge wrongly imposed. That will mean that on the first indictment, on counts 2, 6, 8 and 9, there will be a determinate sentence of 10 years' imprisonment all made concurrent with each other and also concurrent with any other sentence. On counts 3, 7 and 10, there should be a sentence of 7 years' determinate, again, made concurrent with each other and concurrent with any other sentence. This does not affect the extended sentence.

The real gravamen of Mr Parsons’s grounds of appeal is that the custodial term of 30 years for that sentence was manifestly excessive and it is to the grounds of appeal we now turn.

On behalf of the applicant Mr Parsons advances the following grounds of appeal. We make it clear straightaway that we grant leave to appeal and consider the grounds of appeal on their merits. First, he submits that the judge took too high a starting point. It is submitted that in arriving at a sentence resulting in a custodial term of 30 years the judge must have taken a notional sentence after trial of at least 45 years' imprisonment. Mr Parsons submits that that is simply far too high. Secondly, he submits that the judge failed to give sufficient credit for the appellant's pleas and confessions. In particular, it is submitted that the admissions concerned conduct that was wholly outside the then knowledge of the police. Indeed, Mr Parsons has observed before this Court today that the appellant himself made full and frank disclosure going beyond what the individual complainants had been able to remember. Further, he submits that there was genuine remorse in this case. Thirdly, Mr Parsons says that the judge indicated that he would not pass a life sentence but in truth proceeded to pass a sentence which was either equivalent or arguably worse on a practical point of view.

We have received a Respondent's Notice in which Mr Russell makes the submission that in light of the number of offences and the aggravating features in this case, which included breach of trust by a foster carer offending in the presence of other children and the victims being particularly vulnerable because of their very young ages, that there was a very persuasive case for a life sentence to be imposed. The judge having considered that carefully held back from imposing a life sentence. Mr Russell submits that in the absence of a life sentence the judge was clearly entitled to move outside the guideline range given the seriousness of the offending and the large number of separate offences against many very young victims.

In R v Ayo [2022] EWCA Crim 1271; [2023] 1 Cr App R(S) 24, Holroyde LJ (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) gave guidance on a number of matters to deal with sentencing offenders in serious sex cases. At paragraph 24, he said that the appropriate length of the custodial sentence or of the total custodial sentence in a case involving more than one offence will depend on the seriousness of the offending; the facts and circumstances of the case inevitably differ. The assistance to be gained by comparing sentences in other cases is therefore limited. But he continued having cited a number of other decisions of this Court that:

We bear in mind that in the present case the notional sentence after trial would have been one of 45 years' imprisonment, given that the judge gave full credit for guilty pleas and imposed a custodial sentence of 30 years. In our judgment, despite the seriousness of the offences in this case and the number of victims, that was manifestly excessive. Even in a case as serious as this, the total sentence has to be just and proportionate.

We are left in no doubt that the present offending was very serious. The judge was justified in going above the 30 years generally referred to by Holroyde LJ but, in our judgment, the notional sentence after trial should have been in the region of 33 years' imprisonment. Giving full credit for pleas, that would result in a custodial term of 22 years' imprisonment. We see no reason to alter the extended licence period which will remain 6 years. That results in an extended sentence on the lead count of 28 years, comprising a custodial term of 22 years and an extended licence period of 6 years.

For the reasons we have given, we grant leave to appeal and on the appeal we alter the sentences as follows: count 1 on indictment 12NY2012923 and counts 2, 6, 8 and 9 on indictment 12NY0978023, there will be determinate sentences of 10 years' imprisonment made concurrent to each other and to the other sentences. Counts 3, 7 and 10 on indictment 12NY0978023, a sentence of 7 years determinate sentence made concurrent to each other and to the other sentences. Count 1, the lead count, an extended sentence of 28 years comprising a custodial term of 22 years and an extended licence period of 6 years. To that extent this appeal is allowed.