Court of Appeal
| Published date | 01 October 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.5.587 |
| Date | 01 October 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Attempting to Find a Child Prostitute
R v Robson [2009] EWCA Crim 1472
Keywords Child prostitution; Sex offence; Arranging; Facilitating;
Sexual offences; Prevention orders
Robson approached AM, a sex worker whom he regularly used, and
asked if she knew of any younger girls that worked in the sex industry.
AM asked what age he was asking for and he replied about 12 years old.
AM said she did not know of any girls and Robson said he would keep
in touch by phone or text and if she found someone like that to let him
know. Subsequently the applicant telephoned AM, but she did not
answer and Robson also sent two SMS messages. One said, ‘Heard owt
of 12 lass, let me know’, and the second, ‘You got the 12-year-old sorted
yet?’.
AM eventually reported the matter to the police and the SMS mes-
sages were recovered from her telephone. Robson was originally
charged with arranging the commission of an offence under ss 9–13 of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003 contrary to s. 14 of the 2003 Act, but the
judge at first instance held that the offence was not known to the law.
The prosecution appealed this ruling under s. 58 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 and the Court of Appeal held the judge was wrong. The case
was then resumed and the appellant was convicted. He then successfully
appealed against his conviction arguing that there had been an error by
the judge in the summing-up. Robson was then retried, this time for the
offence of attempting to arrange the commission of an offence under
ss 9–13 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 contrary to s.1 of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981 and s. 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was
convicted by the jury and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a
sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) for an indefinite duration.
He appealed against both sentence and conviction arguing that his
actions were not sufficient to amount to an ‘arrangement’ and his
request could only be considered to be preparatory acts and therefore
not an attempt. Robson also sought to argue that the SOPO should not
have been imposed as it was not necessary to protect a member or
members of society from serious sexual harm.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION BUT ALLOWING
,
IN
PART
,
THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
. The Court of Appeal had been
clear on two separate occasions that a jury was entitled to find that the
acts of the appellant amounted to more than preparatory steps in
arranging the commission of a child sex offence. Accordingly, Robson
was properly convicted of the offence.
378 The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 378–384
doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.5.587
To continue reading
Request your trial