Edney, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1247 (03 September 2025)

Edney, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1247 (03 September 2025)

The judge erred by treating dangerousness as the starting point and not clearly applying the Sentencing Council Guidelines to determine the appropriate sentence before considering an extended sentence. The appellant's mental health and learning difficulties reduced her culpability, and after proper application of the guidelines, the total custodial term should have been 3 years and 2 months, which is below the threshold for an extended sentence. The conviction was safe and the guilty plea voluntary.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1247
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/appellant: Danielle Louise Edney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Sentencing, Appeals, Mental Health and Capacity, Entrapment, Guilty Pleas
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sentencing Appeals Mental Health and Capacity Entrapment Guilty Pleas

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Danielle Louise Edney

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to alleged coercion and vulnerability of the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether an extended sentence was lawfully available given the appellant's culpability and mental health

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by treating dangerousness as the starting point and not clearly applying the Sentencing Council Guidelines to determine the appropriate sentence before considering an extended sentence. The appellant's mental health and learning difficulties reduced her culpability, and after proper application of the guidelines, the total custodial term should have been 3 years and 2 months, which is below the threshold for an extended sentence. The conviction was safe and the guilty plea voluntary.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed.

Orders

  • Extension of time and leave to appeal conviction refused; conviction appeal dismissed.
  • Extension of time and leave to appeal sentence granted; extended sentence of 9 years quashed and replaced with determinate sentence of 3 years and 2 months on count 4.