R v Edney 2025
E was transgender - was born as male, identified as female; and had a diagnosis of having autism and learning difficulties.
E claimed she was a support worker and CEO of a company and exchanged sexual messages via Facebook with CG (a decoy Facebook profile of a 13-year-old girl set up by an online child protection team). E was arrested trying to meet CG, interviewed and released under investigation.
Five months later, E set up a Facebook profile in the name of 'Ariana' and messaged a Facebook profile, ES (a decoy Facebook profile of a14-year-old girl set up by a child enforcement team). Again, some messages had sexually explicit content. The profile of the account stated that Ariana was a CEO of a company. E was arrested when trying to meet ES and, when searched, she was found in possession of handcuffs and a self-defence spray.
E pleaded guilty to two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and two counts of attempting to meet a girl under 16 years of age following grooming, each contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
E submitted an application for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds that she was coerced first by paedophile hunters and then by her solicitors into pleading guilty. She said that the evidence against her was false and should not have been allowed as there were no "real" children involved. She argued that she was vulnerable with special needs and that the conviction was unsafe as she did not understand right from wrong, due to her learning difficulties and autism. She criticised the police and the CPS for taking evidence from paedophile hunter groups. She said that the very long delay in submitting her appeal was because she had no assistance from her solicitors and did not know about the appeal process until after she applied to the Criminal Case Review Commission, all of which took a long time.
Held
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
There was no merit in any of the grounds raised. E was not arguably entrapped into acting as she did, there was no basis for her assertion that the evidence against her was fabricated and it was clear that she was fit to plead and thus understood that her actions were wrong. Moreover, she pleaded guilty to these offences and it was not arguable that she was forced into pleading guilty or that her guilty pleas have resulted in an injustice.
The fact that the “child” with whom E communicated and whom she sought to meet was a decoy was a matter to be reflected in sentence but did not affect the criminality of E's actions in contacting and attempting to meet an underage girl for sex. This was explained to her by her solicitors at the time and was no doubt why E decided to enter guilty pleas given the strength of the evidence against her. Had there been any merit in the grounds, then we would have considered granting the very long extension of time sought, given that E was presenting herself on her appeal against conviction but, as there was no merit, the extension of time was refused and the appeal against conviction dismissed.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
