Background
Arun Drewett was sentenced in June 2025 at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames (HHJ Sarah Plashkes KC) to a total of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. The sentence arose from his attempt to cause a 13-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity, a breach of a notification requirement, four breaches of a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), and the activation of a suspended sentence order. The original SHPO was revoked and reimposed in identical terms for an indefinite period.
The primary offence was categorised by the sentencing judge as A2 — deliberate and targeted activity — with a downward adjustment made to reflect the fact that the victim was a decoy rather than an actual child. The judge was also aware of the applicant’s mental health issues and personal mitigation, which she addressed in her sentencing remarks.
Drewett renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence before the Court of Appeal after a single judge refused the application on the papers. He was represented pro bono by Ms Chloe Gardner.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Jay, and Mrs Justice Thornton, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal. The court agreed with the single judge’s reasoning and held that it was not arguable that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.
The court upheld the A2 categorisation of the primary offence, finding the sentencing judge — as the trial judge — was well placed to assess the deliberate and targeted nature of the conduct. The court also endorsed the characterisation of the first SHPO breach as serious and persistent, reflecting a flagrant disregard for a court order. The indefinite reimposition of the SHPO was upheld as a proportionate response to the risk posed by the applicant, noting that an alternative approach might have required an extended sentence order instead.
Having refused leave on the merits, the court found it unnecessary to rule on the related application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing judge’s categorisation of a child sexual offence as deliberate and targeted (A2) will be accorded substantial weight on appeal, particularly where the judge presided over the trial and was best placed to make that assessment.
- A downward adjustment to reflect the use of a decoy does not automatically render the resulting sentence excessive; the court confirmed a 2 years 6 months sentence for the attempt was within the acceptable range.
- Serious, persistent breaches of a sexual harm prevention order with flagrant disregard for a court order justify elevated concurrent sentences for those breaches.
- An indefinite SHPO may be upheld where the court finds it necessary to manage ongoing risk, and its imposition may in fact be more favourable to a defendant than the alternative of an extended sentence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the appellate courts’ deference to Crown Court judges in assessing the seriousness and categorisation of child sexual offending, particularly where the sentencing judge also presided over the trial. It signals that downward adjustments for decoy scenarios do not create a presumption of leniency across the whole sentencing exercise.
The judgment also illustrates the court’s approach to concurrent SHPO breach sentences and indefinite protective orders: where a defendant poses a continuing risk, an indefinite SHPO alongside a substantial custodial term may be treated as a proportionate — and indeed defendant-favourable — alternative to an extended determinate sentence. Practitioners advising defendants in similar cases should weigh these dynamics carefully when assessing prospects on appeal.