The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual grooming.
Held: ‘On the face of it, the fact that the description of the offence in the heading is ‘meeting a child following sexual grooming etc’ might be taken to suggest that the behaviour antecedent to any arranged meeting must itself be sexual in nature. The phrase ‘sexual grooming’, however, does not appear in the section and although the origin of the offence might have been a concern that paedophiles could use the internet to contact and groom children, the language of the provision is far wider than ‘virtual’ sexual contact. Thus, the only requirement prior to the intentional meeting during which A (over 18) intends to do anything to B (under 16) which, if carried out, would involve the commission by A of a relevant offence is meeting or communication ‘on at least two occasions’. There is absolutely no requirement that either communication be sexual in nature.’ The appeal based on a contrary interpretation failed.
Judges:
Leveson LJ, Roderick Evans J, Stokes J
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Crim 1693
Links:
Statutes:
Sexual Offences Act 2003 15(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.420964
