R v Stephen Hopcroft

This is the hearing of an application on the part of His Majesty’s Attorney General for leave to refer a sentence to the Court which the Attorney General considers to be unduly lenient.

The respondent is Stephen Hopcroft, a 65-year-old man. Mr Hopcroft was convicted of three counts of indecent assault and one count of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, following a trial before HHJ Sheridan and a jury in the St Albans Crown Court which concluded in June 2025.

The counts related to Mr Hopcroft's sexual abuse of two girls at some time between 2002 and 2004, and the victims were aged either 13 or 14 years at the time and Mr Hopcroft was aged between 42 and 44 years. The victims have the benefit of lifelong anonymity pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act and we will refer to them as "A" and "B".

Having been convicted in June, on 8 August 2025 Mr Hopcroft was sentenced to an overall sentence of 31 months' imprisonment. That was on count 2, and in relation to: count 1 there was 20 weeks' imprisonment concurrent; count 5, there was 18 months' imprisonment concurrent; and count 8, 10 months' imprisonment concurrent.

At the time of the offences, which as we have already indicated were between 2002 and 2004, Mr Hopcroft worked as a barber. During that period of time he was aged between 42 and 44 years old. One of the victims worked for Mr Hopcroft at the barber's shop on Saturdays sweeping the floor and tidying the shop. Her evidence was that the second victim would also spend time at the barber's shop. We were told and accept that the evidence at the trial was that this was over a 6-week period and the reason that the dates of the offending are given between 2002 and 2004 is because that is the best that any of the parties could do in identifying the 6-week relevant period.

Mr Hopcroft began to behave in an inappropriate and sexualised way towards the victims when they were present in the shop. He suggested to B that he had used her name in bed with his wife, he told them a story of a customer he had caught masturbating and he told them of a woman he was having an affair with receiving oral sex from a dog. This was all part of the grooming behaviour. He also made noises and licked his lips apparently in response to seeing A (the person working) stretch and he would sometimes rub himself over his clothes. He would encourage both girls to sit on his lap and would rub them over their clothing. On one occasion he rubbed B's genitals inside her trousers but over her underwear. That was count 1, which was an indecent assault for which, as we have indicated, he was sentenced to 20 weeks' imprisonment concurrent. On one occasion he offered B a sum of money which was thought to be £30 for her to perform oral sex on him. She agreed and he ejaculated in her mouth. That was count 2, an indecent assault, and he was sentenced to 31 months' imprisonment for that offence. A was present when that took place. On a further occasion, he rubbed A's genitals beneath her clothing but without penetrating her vagina (count 5) and that was an indecent assault and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent. On at least one occasion, while A was present, Mr Hopcroft sat on a sofa at the back of the shop and masturbated openly ejaculating on the floor. That was count 8 which was engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment concurrent.

Mr Hopcroft was arrested in November 2022. He was interviewed and he answered all the questions put to him. He told the police that A had worked in his shop and he recalled her friend B. He said that they had told him they were performing sex acts for men in return for money but he denied that he had any sexual contact with them. He claimed that on one occasion he had gone into the room at the back of the shop and found A and B in a state of undress kissing each other. He said they then offered to perform sexual acts in return for money but he had declined their offer. He was asked why he had not reported the fact that there were two children engaging in sexual acts with men and he said he saw them as young women who were streetwise.

There were victim personal statements for the sentencing. A said that she carried feelings of embarrassment and shame and has blamed herself for what happened. The abuse ended her friendship with B because neither wished to be reminded of the abuse. She believed that the abuse has had a significant effect on subsequent relationships. B said that the abuse had deeply affected her teenage years and early childhood. She had low self-esteem and entered into, as she described, toxic relationships. She felt the offending included grooming behaviour which had caused her confused feelings of guilt. She found the whole trial process emotionally exhausting and she was now in therapy and making slow progress.

Mr Hopcroft has no relevant previous convictions. He had one unrelated conviction for shoplifting in 2003. He had left school at the age of 16 years without completing examinations and entered full-time employment as a barber's apprentice. He remained in that trade for the next 47 years and he had only stopped working 2 years ago due to ill-health and was then dependent on benefits.

Mr Hopcroft suffered from osteoarthritis, which so far as it affected him, was chronic. It reduced his mobility and there was a need for regular injections in his hand, feet and he also suffered from diabetes and required injections in the eyes. He walked with the aid of braces on both legs and a walking frame. He suffered from double incontinence and respiratory conditions including asthma.

After conviction and before sentencing Mr Hopcroft was remanded into custody and he was a permanent resident of the hospital wing where his incontinence could be managed. It was apparent from the judge's reaction that Mr Hopcroft’s appearance had deteriorated over that period of time. Mr Hopcroft was being tested for the onset of dementia prior to being remanded into custody but no further details were provided.

A pre-sentence report proposed a community order as a direct alternative to a custodial sentence. The pre-sentence report recorded that Mr Hopcroft was being held in the hospital wing because of his incontinence and other health issues but the report writer was confident that the medical conditions could be managed by the Prison Service.

When sentencing, the judge said that he had to have regard to the modern day Sentencing Guidelines and regard to the maximum sentences in place at the time of the offences. He noted that Mr Hopcroft was effectively of good character prior to the offences and was now a very sick man. The judge accepted the modern day categorisations urged upon him by the prosecution, which for the purposes of the sentencing were: count 1, would have been harm category 3 and culpability A because of planning, grooming and disparity of age and that would indicate a starting point of 6 months with a sentencing range of a community order to 3 years' imprisonment; count 2 would fall within harm category 1 because it was oral penetration and culpability A and indicated a starting point of 5 years and a sentencing range of 4 to 10 years; count 5 would fall within harm category 2 which was touching of naked genitals and culpability category A and that would indicate a starting point of 3 years and a sentencing range of 2 to 6 years; and count 8, the sexual activity in the presence of the child, would have a starting point of 2 years and a range of 1 to 3 years under modern Sentencing Guidelines.

The judge found that the offences were aggravated by ejaculation, presence of children, location and breach of trust as an employer. The judge imposed a lead sentence on count 2 which was the oral penetration, and he stated that if Mr Hopcroft had been sentenced at the time, the sentence would have been 40 months but he reduced that to 36 months to reflect the passage of time since the offences and the fact that Mr Hopcroft had been of good character. He stated that he would further reduce the sentence because he was shocked by the state of Mr Hopcroft's failing health and the overall sentence would be 31 months. As already indicated, there were concurrent sentences imposed on all other counts.

We have had a report from the prison which shows that Mr Hopcroft's illnesses are being treated adequately, so far as the prison is concerned in the hospital wing. Mr Hopcroft, it was apparent, complained of the adequacy of some of his treatment and it seems from what we were told today that Mr Hopcroft missed one injection for his eyes because there were movements within the prison estate and he was transferred to another prison.

So far as the relevant Overarching Guidelines are concerned, the approach to sentencing historical sexual offences is set out in a dropdown box in the Sentencing Council Sexual Offences Historical Guideline. It provides that he should be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing regime applicable at the time. Under sections 57 and 63 of the Sentencing Act, the court must have regard to the statutory purposes of sentencing and must base the sentence on its assessment of seriousness. The sentence is limited to the maximum sentence available at the date of the commission. If the maximum sentence had been reduced the lower maximum will be applicable and the court should sentence by measured reference to any applicable sentencing guideline for equivalent offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The seriousness of the offence and culpability of Mr Hopcroft is the main consideration for the court.

So far as the Totality Guideline is concerned, that provides that “consecutive sentences will normally be appropriate where: … (c) offences are of the same or similar kind but the overall criminality will not be sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences”. The dropdown box for examples includes “where offences are committed against different people …”.

It is also right to recall that the passage of time where there are no offences, and good character, may be treated as mitigating factors. The guidelines remind sentencers previous good character and exemplary conduct is different from having no previous convictions, and that the more serious the offence the less weight that should be attributed to that factor.

So far as principles relevant to Attorney-General's References are concerned, they can be summarised as follows. The judge at first instance is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to competing factors in considering sentence. A sentence is only unduly lenient where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge at first instance might consider reasonably appropriate. Leave to refer a sentence should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and not in borderline cases. Section 36 of the 1988 Act is designed to deal with cases where the judge has fallen into gross error.

It is submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that this was a case involving two victims aged between 13 and 14 at the time. The judge categorised the offending correctly but did not explain how he had taken 40 months, before further discounting. The sentence was simply too low to reflect two separate child victims.

It is submitted on behalf of Mr Hopcroft that although the community order suggested in the pre-sentence report was unrealistic, it did emphasise Mr Hopcroft’s vulnerable state. Indeed the judge said, and we have already recorded that he was shocked by Mr Hopcroft's appearance from prison. The offending had taken place in a comparatively short period of time of 6 weeks, albeit within the 2-year window that no-one could properly date. There was a situation where one of the victims had been paid for sex but that overall this was a sentence which was lenient but it was not unduly lenient and might properly be characterised as merciful.

In our judgment, the difficulty in dealing with this Reference is that the judge has not explained how he had ended up with his sentence of 40 months, as he put it, as a starting point in relation to the count which he made the main count, count 2. The judge has not indicated how he took into account the separate offending against A in relation to that starting point, which might have been appropriate if dealing only with the offending against B. The judge gave clear explanations for the reasons for discounting from 40 months to take account of Mr Hopcroft's mitigation which was the delay, his character, and his illnesses. In our judgment, what is entirely missing from the sentencing remarks is the recognition of the separate harm that was caused by his separate offending against A, which was count 5 and count 8.

In our judgment, this failure to reflect the offending against A means that this is a sentence which we agree was lenient, and which we consider to have been unduly lenient. This is because it failed to reflect the separate offending and harm caused to A. In our judgment, the best way to take of that offending is to use the sentences that the judge used for the separate sentencing against A, which was count 5, 18 months concurrent and count 8, 10 months concurrent. We will make those concurrent with each other but make the 18 months consecutive to the offence on count 2, which was 31 months.

For all those reasons, we will grant leave for the Reference. We will allow the Reference to the extent that we will adjust the sentences imposed by the judge by making count 5 consecutive to count 2, but maintain count 8 as concurrent. That will then give an overall sentence of 49 months rather than the 31 months. That, in our judgment, reflects the important issues of totality and of course the particular difficulties that Mr Hopcroft has in serving his sentence. For all those reasons we allow the Reference.

We should record that we are very grateful to Mr Hearn and Mr Jenson for the excellence of their written submissions and their helpful oral submissions today.