R v Cobley 2025
In February 2022, C contacted a website providing adult sexual services with an advertisement for "fresh, fun girls". He communicated with "Veronica", who was actually an undercover police officer conducting an operation to detect men seeking underage sexual services. On 8 February 2022, after initially hanging up when told "young teens" were available, C called back using a withheld number and enquired about girls aged 12-14. On 15 February 2022, C called again requesting a 12-year-old brunette girl for "sex, oral, shower and massage" and agreed to pay £250 for unprotected sex. C called 39 times between 8 and 15 February 2022 and provided details of his car when arranging to meet. He later called to say he was on his way but never attended the arranged location.
When interviewed by police, C declined a solicitor and claimed he had been "winding up" someone he thought was from a vigilante or entrapment group. He stated he had no sexual interest in children and no intention of meeting an underage girl.
Police confirmed there were no cash withdrawals of £250 from his bank account.
The prosecution introduced bad character evidence of a Skype conversation with a woman in the Philippines where C negotiated a fee to see a 7-year-old girl naked.
On 22 April 2024, C was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sexual offence. On 15 November 2024, he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
The case came before the Court of Appeal following C's application for leave to appeal against conviction (after refusal by a single judge) and his appeal against sentence (granted leave by a single judge).
C submitted that the judge erred in concluding there was a case to answer, arguing insufficient evidence existed for a jury to conclude he intended to go through with the arrangements.
C argued that other explanations for his contact with "Veronica", including fantasy, could not be discounted and did not involve any intent to offend.
C contended that the judge erred in permitting evidence of his contact with the woman in the Philippines, arguing it was prejudicial, unfair, involved only one incident, and resulted in no criminal conviction.
On sentencing, C argued the judge erred in treating a non-existent child as particularly vulnerable, and that the age of the notional victim was at the very top of the bracket for the offence.
C submitted that the judge made an insufficient reduction to reflect his personal mitigation.
C argued the indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order was inappropriate given this was a short episode of criminal conduct, he had no previous convictions, was of good character, and had complied with bail conditions.
Held
Appeals refused.
The Court of Appeal refused C's application for leave to appeal against conviction and dismissed his appeal against sentence. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer an intention to commit the offence, the bad character evidence was properly admitted, and the sentence of six years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the serious nature of the planned offence. The Court also upheld the indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order, finding no error in the judge's decision given the circumstances of the case and what C was seeking to arrange.
Unlike cases involving fantasy discussions (R v Hedgcock and R v G), this case involved commercial negotiations for sexual services. The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to admit bad character evidence of a prior conversation about paying to see a naked child, as it was relevant to proving C's sexual interest in children.
The six-year sentence was deemed appropriate given the serious nature of the planned offence, with adequate reduction from a ten-year starting point to account for C's good character and the fact he ultimately did not attend the arranged meeting.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
