R v Dafydd Garry Palfrey

MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS: On 3 October 2025 in the Crown Court at Cardiff, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 10 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (count 1). On 7 October 2025, the appellant, aged 45, pleaded guilty to an offence of attempted sexual communication with a child, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 15A Sexual Offences Act 2003 (count 2). The offences related to the same events. On 7 October 2025, the appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Harrison to 34 months' imprisonment on count 1 and eight months' imprisonment concurrent on count 2. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years was made. Leave to appeal was granted by the Single Judge.

The Child Online Safety Team is a voluntary group that looks to identify individuals who speak to children online for sexual gratification. In March 2025 a member of this group created a decoy account using photographs from members of the public aged 18 or over who had given their consent to photographs of them while they were children being used for that purpose. The decoy account was created on Chat IW in the name of Olivia Jackson.

On 7 March 2025, the appellant sent the decoy account a message. She responded on the same day, saying she was Olivia, aged 13, from Brighton. The appellant and the decoy had a general conversation which then moved onto the WhatsApp messaging platform. As the conversation continued on WhatsApp, the decoy again informed the appellant that she was 13 years old and sent a photograph of the decoy in school uniform, with the appellant sending a photograph in return.

The conversation became increasingly sexual, with the appellant asking the decoy to send a photograph of her in her bra and knickers. He also made several suggestions that he could visit the decoy, and he requested a full body photograph of the decoy without a top on. The appellant then sent a photograph of him in his boxer shorts. Again, he encouraged the decoy to get undressed and send him photographs, telling her not to be shy and that she would not get into trouble. The appellant began to speak to the decoy about masturbation and told her to put her hand in her knickers and rub. He then sent a photograph of his penis and asked the decoy if she had heard of oral sex. He sent a video of a female masturbating, encouraging the decoy to follow along.

The conversation continued, with the appellant falsely suggesting he was 21 years old. Again he asked for naked photographs from the decoy. He informed the decoy he was getting in the bath, suggested the decoy should join him and again asked for naked photographs.

Once the conversation had concluded the user behind the account put the appellant's photographs into a reverse image search. The appellant's Facebook account was found, and searches were made on the electoral roll. The Child Online Safety Team group passed the information onto a group who attended the appellant's address. The appellant was subsequently arrested on 9 March 2025, and several devices were seized from his home address. The chat logs between the appellant and the decoy were recovered on the devices. The appellant gave a no comment interview to police.

The appellant was interviewed on 25 September 2025 for the purposes of a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”). He indicated he had experienced a significant deterioration in his mental health in the period before these offences. His then partner had lost their unborn baby and their relationship had broken down. He had misused drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism and had consumed cocaine and alcohol at the time of the offending. The author of the report considered the appellant showed sincere remorse, but he had sought to minimise his offending in indicating he was not aware of the decoy's age. The appellant described a steady employment record in the IT industry, after obtaining a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science. He had resigned his employment when arrested and, given the publicity it had attracted, he had become isolated since then. He said he had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and stress and had been prescribed Sertraline by his GP. He had reduced his alcohol intake significantly since his arrest and he had not used cocaine at all since this time. He was willing to engage in any interventions that were deemed appropriate.

The report recommended the imposition of a 12 month Community Order, with 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement sessions to enable the completion of the Maps for Change toolkit to support him in desisting from further sexual offending and an Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement. The author noted that these requirements could also be attached to a suspended sentence.

The Judge indicated he had read the various positive references provided by family, friends and neighbours. He explained he would treat count 1 as the lead offence, imposing a concurrent sentence in relation to count 2.

Referring to the Sentencing Guidelines for inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, the Judge noted that the Court should identify the category of harm on the basis of the intended sexual activity, then apply a downward adjustment to reflect the fact that no harm resulted. The guideline indicated that the extent of the reduction would be specific to the case. Where the child victim did not exist and but for that fact the offender would have carried out the offence, only a very small reduction from the category range would be appropriate. The guideline also stated that no additional reduction should be made for the fact that the offending was an attempt.

The Judge concluded that the harm fell within Level 1, given the incitement related to penetration of the vagina. He assessed the appellant's culpability as within category A, as the following factors were present: the appellant had lied about his age; there was a significant disparity in age; and sexual images were solicited. The starting point for an A1 offence was five years, with an offence range of four to ten years.

The Judge indicated that, in accordance with the guideline, he would make "a small reduction" to reflect the absence of a child victim. This was a case where the offence would otherwise have been completed.

The Judge identified two aggravating factors, namely the appellant had sent the decoy (who he thought was a child) a photograph of his penis; and he was under the influence of drink and drugs at the time. He identified the following mitigating features: the appellant had no relevant previous convictions, the offence was out of character and had occurred at a particularly difficult time in the appellant's life. The Judge accepted the appellant was genuinely remorseful, albeit there was a degree of minimisation.

The Judge said the offending was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified. The sentence he would have imposed after a notional trial was four years and three months' custody, which he reduced by a third to 34 months as the appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The attempted sexual communication with a child offence was an A1 offence under the applicable guideline, with a starting point of 18 months and an offence range of nine months to two years. The Judge imposed a sentence of 12 months, reduced by the guilty plea credit to eight months' imprisonment.

Mr Jones advances five grounds of appeal in support of his submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a sentence under A2 of the guidelines could have been suspended:

By way of more general supporting points, Mr Jones emphasises the offending occurred over a relatively short period of time (a matter of hours) and there were no messages to indicate a planned meeting or any intention on the part of the appellant to arrange a meeting. The appellant was 45 years old and he had not experienced custody before 7 October 2025. He had a continuous work record after school and university. He lived with his elderly parents who he assisted. Publicity in his local area had already been a form of punishment to him.

There is no issue raised over the Judge's assessment that count 1 involved culpability A offending. Given the intended sexual activity involving penetration of the vagina, the Judge was right to assess the harm at Level 1. It follows that he was right to identify a five year starting point for this A1 offence. The Judge was also correct in reflecting the absence of a child victim by the small reduction that he then made to this five year figure. Contrary to Mr Jones' suggestion that he should have identified a significantly lower figure to reflect the decoy element of the case, the Judge's approach accurately and fairly reflected the applicable sentencing guideline, as he explained.

Further, the Judge took account of the appellant's mitigation. He referred to the factors that Mr Jones' highlights, including the absence of relevant previous convictions and the appellant's remorse. After making the small reduction from five years for the decoy element and then uplifting his figure to reflect the two aggravating features he had identified and to take account of the offending in the count 2 offence, the Judge must have then made significant allowance for the appellant's mitigation in order to have arrived at his notional sentence after trial figure of four years and three months. We can see no error in his approach. Whilst the appellant had taken important steps in reducing his alcohol and drug consumption since his arrest, for which he is to be commended, it is apparent from the PSR that he still had some way to go in addressing the factors that had precipitated his offending.

The Judge's approach to these serious offences was careful and considered. The sentence he imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.