R v Gary Peter Campbell

The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal together with an extension of time following refusal by the single judge.

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. 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 the Act.

On 19 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty to 22 sexual offences involving children. On 29 February 2024 he was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Pierpoint to an extended sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial term of nine years and an extended licence period of five years. The Notice of Appeal is dated 3 February 2025 and the appeal is accordingly 305 days out of time.

In relation to the application for an extension of time, the applicant explains that he only learned that he had a right of appeal a few days before he submitted the appeal notice. Although he had been due to have a post-hearing conference with his barrister over the video link, the link was dropped before that could happen and he never got to talk to his barrister again. We accept this explanation. The applicant's medical problems are also likely to have been a contributing factor. We consider that the question of extension of time should depend on our views as to the substantive merits of the application.

The offences, the sentences imposed and the victims involved were as follows.

The victims were all young boys. Counts 1 to 4 related to FF aged eight. Counts 5 to 8 related to JA aged six. Counts 9 to 14 related to KJ aged seven. Counts 15 to 20 related to GB aged nine. Counts 21 and 22 related to possessing indecent photographs of children and taking indecent photographs of children, who were the children involved in the index offences and included the children with their underwear down, children urinating in a bottle and photographs depicting the separation of buttocks.

The facts giving rise to these offences were as follows. Over a period of just short of a week in July 2023 the applicant, who lived in Devon, began to spend time loitering in the vicinity of a subway in Vulcan Close, Warrington. This is in a housing estate. It is in an area where there are trees and bushes and grass and an area where children would play. The applicant would park his car a few minutes away and walk into the estate. He targeted the children playing in the area. He had large amounts of cash that he had withdrawn from a bank whilst he was in Warrington and he used some of this cash in order to entice them and gain their trust. This was deliberate, pre-planned and predatory behaviour designed to entrap young children to satisfy his own sexual perversions.

Having groomed the boys with cash, he made them kick him in his own testicles, bite him on the arm and punch him in the face, this being for his own sexual gratification. He got the boys to urinate in a chocolate milk bottle one after the other. He then put the bottle into his pocket. He also pulled their pants away from their body to look at their genitals. He made them go into bushes and pull their pants down, whereupon he took pictures of their bare buttocks, their penises and the like. He also sucked the boys' penises and licked two of them on their buttocks and also licked them between the middle line of their anuses, thus partially penetrating the same. Those two boys were caused to watch the other being subjected to this abuse, that is watching an act of penetration.

Needless to say the impact of the offending on the boys and their families has been devastating. One mother explained how it had affected the whole family. In her words it had "broken her". Another mother explained how her son had been traumatised. She described how he is terrified to sleep on his own and this has completely knocked his confidence. It has in her words "broken their family", a family that was already at the time suffering and dealing from their own personal trauma.

The basis for this application for leave to appeal is that the applicant, who is aged 60, considers that the learned judge failed to take sufficient account of his mitigation and in particular the fact that he is his wife's carer. She is bed-bound, unable to meet or talk to other people and he says that she is now deteriorating rapidly. He also refers to his own deteriorating health as he suffers from post-perfusion syndrome and he refers to his mental health difficulties.

In our judgment nothing relied on by the applicant in his Notice of Appeal causes us to doubt even remotely the appropriateness of the sentences passed by the learned judge. The applicant appears unable to appreciate that his offending was always going to merit a significant sentence of imprisonment and therefore separation from his wife for a significant period of time. Consideration for her should have caused him not to satisfy his sexual perversions in the way that he did in the first place.

Furthermore, we consider that the sentencing remarks of the learned judge were a model of their kind. Her assessments of harm and culpability by reference to the sentencing guidelines were unimpeachable and she took appropriate account of totality and the mitigating factors. She was clearly right to assess the applicant as dangerous and to impose an extended sentence. The custodial element of the sentence was not manifestly excessive or even excessive at all. Many judges would have passed longer sentences.

In our judgment there is absolutely no merit in this application for leave to appeal which is accordingly refused.