BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Hudson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 724 (22 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/724.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 724

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 724
CASE NO: 202203102 A2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEICESTER
(HHJ KEITH RAYNOR) [T20210308]

Royal Courts of Justice
WC2A 2LL
22 May 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
MRS JUSTICE YIP DBE
MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES DBE

____________________

REX

- v -

MICHAEL JAMES HUDSON


(The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies.)

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR WARBURTON appeared on behalf of the Applicant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MRS JUSTICE YIP:

  1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under the provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during the 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. The prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
  2. On 30 September 2022 in the Crown Court at Leicester, the applicant (who was then aged 81) was sentenced to a total of 15 years' imprisonment for sexual offending committed in the 1980s when he was a canoeing instructor working with young people.
  3. The single judge refused leave to appeal against that sentence in February 2023 and the decision was communicated to the applicant in March 2023.
  4. The applicant, acting through fresh solicitors and counsel, Mr Warburton, now seeks a substantial extension of time (741 days) to bring a renewed application for leave.
  5. The applicant has submitted a statement in which he says that the impact of his incarceration, coupled with medical issues, meant that he was reliant on support in applying for leave to appeal. He was aware that his solicitors had applied for leave to appeal and knew that permission was refused by the Court of Appeal but could not recall being provided with any advice on renewing his application for leave to appeal.
  6. The Criminal Appeal Office has confirmed that notification of the refusal of leave was sent to the governor of the prison in which he was held. The covering letter expressly directed the governor to ensure that the applicant's attention was brought to the accompanying notes which explained how to apply to renew the application for leave. Although the applicant's former solicitors are unable to confirm with certainty that he was provided with advice about renewal, that would be their normal practice. It therefore seems highly likely that the applicant was told of the process for renewal including relevant time limits. When that time expired the applicant was sent a further letter via the prison governor explaining how he could apply for an extension of time if, exceptionally, there were good reasons for not renewing his application in time. We are not convinced on the material that we have seen that there were good reasons for the substantial delay.
  7. Mr Warburton, who now appears on the applicant's behalf, relies on R v G [2024] EWCA Crim 188 in which a different constitution of this court said at [12]:
  8. "Even where there is lengthy delay without reasonable excuse, the court will always consider the merits of the proposed appeal."

  9. That was a judgment in an application in which there was no representation on either side. It does not provide any authoritative statement of principle and was not intended to do so. It should not be taken as acceptance that this court will simply disregard time limits and proceed to consider the merits in every case, no matter what the length of the delay or the reasons (or lack of reasons) advanced. Time limits are important for the efficient management of the court's business. Nevertheless we do consider it appropriate in this case to consider the merits of the proposed appeal before deciding the application for an extension of time.
  10. The applicant was convicted by a jury of ten counts of indecent assault on a male person, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Nine of those counts related to one boy (then aged about 13) the final count involved another boy of a similar age. In order to preserve anonymity for the victims, we shall refer to them in this judgment as "V1" and "V2".
  11. V1 was a vulnerable boy. His mother had died and he did not have a stable home life. He had also sustained a significant injury, the detail of which need not be mentioned. He began canoeing lessons with the applicant and his brother and regarded the canoeing club as a "happy escape". The applicant exploited that, repeatedly abusing V1. The abuse included multiple occasions when the applicant touched V1's penis while he and other boys were changing. He would go into the changing area, making lewd comments to the boys present, saying they should masturbate their penises to make them larger. There were multiple other occasions when the applicant found opportunities to touch V1's penis. There were also repeated occasions when he made V1 touch his penis. On at least two separate occasions he forced V1's head down on to his penis, penetrating his mouth. There were also at least two occasions (represented by count 7) when he digitally penetrated V1's anus whilst also masturbating him, leaving his finger there until he caused V1 to ejaculate or until he ejaculated himself. He told V1 this would feel good. V1 said that it hurt and that he thought he was being punished.
  12. One day the applicant invited V1 and V2 and some other boys to his flat. The applicant's brother was also there. The boys were given alcohol and shown pornographic films. The boys were undressed and filmed in varying states of undress. They were encouraged to masturbate to get erections. The applicant took V1 to his bedroom and tried to put a vibrator into V1's anus (count 8). The applicant then got angry and pushed V1's head down and made V1 give him oral sex (count 9).
  13. V2 remembered the applicant trying to masturbate him, but he could not get an erection and thought he was doing something wrong. The applicant had a tape measure and latex objects used as masturbation devices which he encouraged the boys to try out. The applicant concentrated on V1 because he was more developed than the other boys. The applicant asked the boys to go into his bedroom and masturbate him, telling him, "It's not gay, it's what friends do for each other, helping each other out."
  14. The two victims (now in their 50s) remained deeply affected by the abuse. V1 reported that he had attempted suicide at aged 19 and had suffered depression at various times throughout the decades. He found it very difficult to make lasting relationships especially with men. Reliving the events at trial had caused him deep anguish.
  15. V2 had also experienced mental health difficulties, not all of which he attributed to the abuse. But it is clear that the abuse he had experienced had continued to play on his mind and had stopped him forming normal male relationships. He had lost his friendships with the other boys from the canoeing club and had not had any other close male friendships since. He described himself as numb and shut down inside.

  16. The applicant had no previous convictions. No other matters had brought him before the courts in the many years since the offences in 1984. By the time of sentence he was at an advanced age and not in the best health. He had significant hearing loss, which the judge accepted would make his experience of custody more difficult.
  17. The judge approached sentencing by identifying counts 8 and 7 as the most serious involving V1. On those counts he imposed sentences of 7 years and 6 years respectively to run consecutively. For count 10, which represented the touching of V2's penis, the sentence was 2 years' imprisonment, also to be served consecutively. All other counts were dealt with by way of concurrent terms. For those counts involving oral penetration of V1's mouth the sentence was 5 years' imprisonment and for all the other offences involving V1 each count was met with 2 years' imprisonment, all concurrent.
  18. By his original grounds of appeal the applicant argues that the overall sentence breached the principle of totality. It was contended that the decision to impose consecutive sentences on counts 7, 8 and 10 resulted in an overall sentence that was manifestly excessive.
  19. In the renewed application which the applicant seeks to advance he now puts forward three grounds of appeal. We note that in addition to being granted an extension of time, he would also require leave to amend his grounds. The revised grounds are:
  20. (1) By failing to take account of all relevant factors, the judge's regard to the modern guidelines for equivalent offences was not one of measured reference.
    (2) Insufficient regard was had to the applicant's very advanced age and other personal mitigation.
    (3) The judge did not have proper regard to totality.
  21. Mr Warburton accepts that the judge correctly identified the principles in sentencing older offenders and the need to keep in mind the relevant statutory maximum sentence at the time of the historic offending. He also correctly stated the need to make measured reference to relevant modern sentencing guidelines. However, Mr Warburton argues that the judge's approach was not one of measured reference because he failed to consider the difference between the statutory maximum that applied to the offences charged under the 1956 Act and the equivalent offences that would now be charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Instead, it is argued that the judge adopted a mechanistic approach, relying on modern sentencing guidelines.
  22. Next, Mr Warburton argues that although the judge said that he took account of all mitigation, he failed to sufficiently allow for the applicant's advanced age and near deafness.
  23. Finally, it is argued that the judge did not have regard or sufficient regard to proportionality. He simply totalled the three sentences on counts 7, 8 and 10 without making any downward adjustment, thereby producing a sentence that was manifestly excessive.
  24. We do not consider any of the proposed grounds of appeal to be properly arguable. The judge set out the sentencing principles he was applying very clearly. His sentencing remarks contain no error of principle. They accord entirely with the authorities.
  25. The judge unequivocally stated that the statutory maximum for each offence was 10 years and kept that in mind. As is accepted, he correctly categorised the offences. He highlighted that it was significant that he was dealing with multiple offences. He expressly referred to the Sentencing Council Guidelines on totality and in our judgment applied them correctly. The judge was sentencing for a total of ten offences, many of which represented offending on more than one occasion. The judge was required to impose a proportionate sentence to reflect the totality of the offending.
  26. The judge decided that the appropriate way to structure the sentence was to select two of the offences committed against V1 as lead offences to impose a combined sentence of 13 years to reflect the totality of the offending against that victim. He then imposed a further consecutive sentence of 2 years for the offending against V2. On any interpretation, the individual sentences on each of counts 7, 8 and 10 did have substantial discounts built in from the applicable starting points in the modern guidelines. Totality was further reflected by making all the other sentences concurrent.
  27. In our judgment it cannot sensibly be argued that the overall sentence was disproportionate to the overall criminality, even after allowing for the applicant's age and personal mitigation. This was quite appalling offending, the consequences of which the victims have had to live with for decades. The lengthy sentence was a consequence of the seriousness of that offending, which the judge reflected in an entirely appropriate manner. For these reasons we do not consider the proposed new grounds of appeal to be arguable. It follows that even if we were persuaded to grant an extension of time, we would not grant permission to amend the grounds or grant leave to appeal. In those circumstances it is unnecessary for us to consider the reasons behind the lengthy delay further. This application is refused.
  28. Before leaving this case we note the judge indicated that the applicant would be required to serve two-thirds of his sentence as he was sentenced to imprisonment of 7 years or more. This was confirmed at the time by prosecution counsel. We are grateful to the Registrar for bringing to our attention that this appears to be an error. It would seem that the judge had in mind the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, which was subsequently replaced on 28 June 2022 by section 244ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Although the applicant was convicted of a relevant sexual offence, as a sentence of life imprisonment could not be imposed for the relevant offence (that is, indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) section 244ZA did not apply. As such, it would appear that the applicant should be released after serving half of this sentence rather than two-thirds: see section 264(6)(d) of the 2003 Act.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010