The Marie Collins Foundation (MCF) is deeply interested in the issue of sentencing, particularly in how this intersects with convictions for Technology Assisted Child Sexual Abuse (TACSA). We contributed to the Independent Sentencing Review Call for Evidence in January 2025, submitting comprehensive input on our areas of concern within current sentencing policy and practice. We also outlined these issues directly to the Chair of the review team during a roundtable event, prior to submitting our feedback.
Summary of Concerns
Our concerns centre around the following:
1. Overuse of Suspended Sentences for TACSA Offences
An observable anecdotal trend of suspended sentences for TACSA offences, such as the taking, distributing, having and sharing of an indecent image of a child (Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1). Public reporting of sentencing for such offences indicates that suspended sentences are heavily used by courts, upon conviction. This is confirmed by empirical data from the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, indicating that 8 in 10 convictions for child sexual abuse material offences result in non-custodial sentences, (e.g. suspended sentences and community orders). We are concerned that this trivialises this form of serious sexual offending against children and is an insufficient punishment compared with the long-term harm suffered by child victims.
2. Limited Scope of the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) Scheme
Additionally, we outlined in our submission that we were perturbed that the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme is too narrowly available. Under current conditions, most sentencing disposals for the section 1 offence (mentioned) occur in Magistrates’ Courts. This renders the review of a perceived unduly lenient sentence as automatically out of scope for a significant portion of TACSA victims.
Response to the Report’s Recommendations
Having reviewed the final report on sentencing reform, MCF is extremely disappointed that the recommendations have overlooked the key areas we mentioned. As a victim-focused charity seeking to promote recovery and healing from TACSA, we believe the report falls short in properly addressing the needs of victims of technological expressions of abuse towards children and young people.
While we recognise the review was primarily tasked with determining a pathway to reduce the expanding prison population, we do not believe the recommendations balance this with several of the overall purposes of sentencing. Specifically, we question how the recommendation to limit the use of custodial sentences can truly meet the goal of punishment, a key tenet of sentencing practice. Furthermore, we feel this will undermine deterrence and public protection, both of which are further aims of sentencing.
Although innovation of sentencing options has some merits, we are troubled by the review’s recommendation to extend the use of community orders. This approach may indicate to convicted offenders of a child sexual abuse material offence that their crime is less serious than other forms of child sexual abuse. Furthermore, sustained and growing use of community and suspended sentences may incentivise potential offenders to proceed with online sexual abuse of children, believing the sentences are low enough to take a risk on offending.
We note that the report made no specific recommendation around improving access to the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, as highlighted in our submission to the review team. Indeed, there is only one mention of the scheme, which encouraged raising awareness of its existence with victims. As we made clear in our feedback, the scheme is not available for most victims of the section 1 offence, as these cases are rarely heard in the Crown Court – which is one of the crucial thresholds for being in-scope of the scheme. Raising awareness will not equate to greater access for victims of this form of sexual offending.
The report raises several questions. We wonder at how ‘serious offending’ and ‘dangerous offending’ are categorised and defined, as mentioned in the report (p4; p8), specifically with regard to child sex offences. We believe there is a considerable lack of appreciation within the criminal justice system, existing legislation and corresponding sentencing tariffs for the grave nature of TACSA. Empirical, international research demonstrates the serious and long-term impact of such offences on child victims. We would like to see the government make clear that TACSA offences are serious and will be dealt with robustly. We question how the use of suspended sentence for these types of crime against children and young people can be considered commensurate with the harm. Furthermore, given the report’s emphasis on improvements to rehabilitation processes, we would like to understand how the government will attend to this with current budgetary constraints. This is an especially important practicality when rehabilitative programme developments will be crucial to counteract the proposals on using custodial sentences only as “a last resort” (p14). While we are supportive of evidence-based rehabilitative programs for sexual offenders, delivered by trained professionals, this should not be to the exclusion of an appropriate sentence upon conviction, including immediate custody for appropriately serious crimes like making or sharing child sexual abuse material.
Although the report discusses victims and the need to improve sentencing transparency, we are concerned by the apparent focus on the impact of sentencing on offenders. In particular, the argument for use of non-custodial sentences as “less disruptive” (p9) on offenders is somewhat tone-deaf to the voices of victims. Greater awareness and amplification of the potential lifelong disruptions faced by victims following abuse is needed throughout the report and recommendations. Furthermore, the suggestion of “earned progression” towards early release is highly offender-focused, offering a variety of early off-ramps to offenders for so-called good behaviour and compliance. This area places very limited focus on victims and the impact of early release on them and their wellbeing.
Victim Voice from the Lived Experience Perspective
Billie, a member of our Lived Experience Group, commented on the report:
After reading the sentencing review feels heavily focused on the needs of offenders. While I recognise the value of reforming the prison system, the lenient sentencing around TACSA offences makes it feel as though the abuse is being minimised. Victims like myself are left to carry the trauma while the consequences for the offender seem limited.
Non-custodial sentences, in particular, can make victims feel unsafe. Knowing that an abuser may still be in the community can be deeply unsettling and may prevent victims from feeling truly protected.
I also want to stress that if the justice system doesn't hand down serious consequences, it sends the wrong message to perpetrators. If someone believed they could commit serious harm and still avoid prison, why would they stop? It's like saying you could steal 100 chocolate bars without consequence; the lack of accountability risks encouraging repeated behaviour.
Missed Opportunities and Policy Recommendations
While we agree with the review that the statutory purposes for sentencing should be amended to emphasise the importance of protecting victims and reducing crime, this must correspond with meaningful change to sentencing practice. Protecting victims and attending to their needs within the Criminal Justice System should not be tokenistic. Unfortunately, we believe the report represents a significant missed opportunity to recalibrate sentencing policy and practice for TACSA offences and to acknowledge victims. Although we note the government has already rejected some of the recommendations, we urge the government to scrutinise the report further and reconsider several of the recommendations, especially the diversion away from custodial sentences. Additionally, we ask the Government to review the operation of the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme and offer TACSA victims the opportunity to have sentences reviewed, whether their cases are dealt with in Magistrate’s or Crown Court. While prisons may be overcrowded, it is important that any policy and legal changes to sentencing do not overlook victims, or the need for appropriate punishment for Technology-Assisted Child Sexual Abuse offences.