A recent Court of Appeal decision provides important guidance on sentencing for making and distributing indecent images of children, particularly where the offending began when the defendant was under 18, there has been a substantial delay in bringing charges, and significant steps have been taken towards rehabilitation.

In R v Jones [2026] EWCA Crim 1347, decided on 29 September 2026, the Court of Appeal reduced a 24-month suspended prison sentence to 16 months and shortened a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) from 10 years to five years.

The decision illustrates why a court must look carefully at an individual’s circumstances, not simply the category or number of images involved. It also demonstrates the limits of mitigation: despite allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, remained appropriate.

What happened in R v Jones?

Mr Jones pleaded guilty to three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of distributing indecent images. The material included category A, B and C images, including videos. The offending took place between 2019 and 2022, when he was aged between 17 and 19.

He was arrested in June 2022 but was not charged until October 2025, approximately 40 months later. In November 2025, St Albans Crown Court imposed a total prison sentence of 24 months, suspended for two years, together with a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement.

A 10-year SHPO was also made, restricting his access to internet-enabled devices.

The Court of Appeal considered the sentence excessive in light of his age at the time of the offences, the delay, the evidence of rehabilitation and the way the individual sentences had been combined.

Why did the Court of Appeal reduce the sentence?

1. His age when the offences were committed

Some of the offending occurred when Mr Jones was only 17. The Court emphasised that where a person is convicted as an adult for an offence committed as a child, the sentencing court must ordinarily apply the relevant principles of the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline and start by considering the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time of the offence.

The offender’s 18th birthday is not a sharp dividing line for assessing maturity. Youth and lack of maturity can also be relevant to offending committed at 18 or 19.

The Court found that the original sentencing remarks did not adequately explain how these principles had affected the sentences imposed.

2. A delay of more than three years before charge

There had been a delay of around 40 months between arrest and charge. The apparent explanation was a backlog of electronic devices awaiting examination.

The Court of Appeal did not say that this delay was necessarily unjustifiable. However, it considered it a considerable period for a young person to remain uncertain about whether they would be prosecuted, and held that the delay should have been reflected in the sentence.

Delay is not an automatic defence or an automatic entitlement to a reduced sentence. Its significance depends on the circumstances, including the effect on the defendant and what has happened during the intervening period.

3. Genuine and sustained rehabilitation

The Court placed weight on the extensive rehabilitative work Mr Jones had undertaken after his arrest. This included engagement with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and regular psychotherapy over several years.

He had not committed further offences during that period, had accepted responsibility and had supportive relationships and employment. The Court also considered his history of childhood trauma and other personal vulnerabilities.

The pre-sentence report recognised his progress and considered his risk of reoffending to be low if protective measures and the work he had undertaken were maintained.

This is a particularly important aspect of the decision. In suitable cases, credible evidence of sustained rehabilitation may make a significant difference to the outcome at sentence.

Such work needs to be genuine, appropriate and properly evidenced.

4. The correct approach to consecutive and concurrent sentences

The original Crown Court sentence involved a consecutive element which increased the total to 24 months.

The Court of Appeal referred to earlier authorities concerning offending which begins in childhood and continues into adulthood. It considered that the sentence for the later, continuing offending should reflect the overall criminality, with the other sentences running concurrently.

Taking that approach, the Court substituted an overall sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Why was a community order not imposed?

The defence argued that Mr Jones’s rehabilitation justified a community order instead of a suspended prison sentence.

The Court of Appeal considered this carefully but rejected the argument.

The offending was serious, involving category A material, moving images, distribution and children who had suffered real harm. The Court agreed that the custody threshold had been passed and that a suspended custodial sentence remained appropriate.

Therefore, R v Jones does not mean that rehabilitation automatically entitles someone convicted of an indecent images offence to a community order.

It means that age, delay, rehabilitation and the structure of a sentence must all receive proper consideration.

Why was the Sexual Harm Prevention Order reduced from 10 years to five?

The defence also challenged the Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to make an order because restrictions and monitoring of internet use were considered necessary to protect children and reduce the risk of further offending.

However, it found that 10 years was longer than necessary and reduced the SHPO to five years. The substantive conditions were not otherwise changed.

Crucially, the Court confirmed that the offender’s sexual offender notification requirements remained at 10 years.

The duration of an SHPO and the period of notification requirements are separate legal issues and must not be confused.

What does this decision mean for people facing indecent images charges?

For anyone under investigation or approaching sentence for making indecent images or distributing indecent images, the judgment reinforces the importance of preparing a detailed and properly evidenced case in mitigation.

Matters that may be particularly relevant include:

• The defendant’s age and maturity when the offending occurred.
• Any lengthy delay in the police investigation or charging decision.
• Evidence of positive behaviour and no further offending since the original offences.
• Engagement with appropriate specialist therapy or rehabilitation programmes.
• Evidence of remorse, acceptance of responsibility and insight.
• Supportive personal relationships, employment and other protective factors.
• The conclusions and recommendations of the pre-sentence report.

For more information about the sentencing process, see our guide to sentencing for indecent images.

The case also shows why the terms and duration of a proposed SHPO should be scrutinised independently of the prison sentence. Any restrictions must be justified by the protective purpose of the order, and its duration should not be longer than necessary.

Every case turns on its own facts. This judgment is not a guarantee of a suspended sentence, a shorter SHPO or a successful appeal. It does, however, provide a useful reminder of the importance of individualised sentencing and careful preparation.

Note: The original sentence in this case was imposed in November 2025. The Court of Appeal expressly stated that the changes to suspension of sentences which came into force on 22 March 2026 did not apply to Mr Jones’s case.

Frequently asked questions about the judgment

Can a long police investigation reduce an indecent images sentence?

Potentially. In R v Jones, the Court of Appeal considered the 40-month delay between arrest and charge to be a relevant mitigating consideration.

The mere passage of time does not automatically reduce a sentence; the reasons for the delay and the circumstances of the individual case matter.

Does rehabilitation mean someone will avoid a custodial sentence?

Not necessarily. Mr Jones had undertaken substantial rehabilitative work, yet the Court concluded that the seriousness of his offending justified a custodial sentence.

It remained suspended, rather than being replaced by a community order.

Does a shorter SHPO reduce the period of sex offender notification requirements?

No the notification requirements depend entirely on the substantive sentence not on the length of the SHPO. In this case, the SHPO was reduced to five years, but the notification requirements remained in force for 10 years.

Specialist legal advice from McMillans Solicitors

At McMillans Solicitors, we specialise in defending individuals investigated or prosecuted for offences involving indecent images of children.

We understand the anxiety caused by lengthy investigations and the importance of preparing thoroughly for any sentencing hearing.

If you have been released under investigation, charged with an indecent images offence or are awaiting sentence, we can provide confidential advice about your circumstances, potential mitigation and the appropriate next steps.

Call 01992 566730 for an initial confidential discussion or contact McMillans Solicitors online.

Case reference: R v Jones [2026] EWCA Crim 1347, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 29 September 2026.

This article provides general information about the Court of Appeal’s decision and should not be regarded as legal advice on any individual case

The article has been reviewed by a solicitor at McMillans Solicitors, a specialist criminal defence practice with extensive experience representing individuals investigated and prosecuted for indecent image offences.

Published: 30 October 2026