In the Court of Appeal, Dame Julia Macur heard the appeal from Mr Leigh and his advocate, Peter Ferbrache, following his sentencing in the Royal Court at the end of February.
He argued that the custodial sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ on a number of grounds, including the fact that co-defendant Ian Chatting-Tonks had only received a suspended sentence for his offences, which he described as an ‘unjustifiable disparity’.
The offence relating to the dog was not covered by the Royal Court case but was considered in the Magistrate’s Court.
Dame Julia said that sentencing comments in relation to some of the sex offences Leigh faced was ‘insufficiently reasoned’, with no explanation for why a starting point for sentencing of 27 months was selected by the court.
She accepted that it could be argued that some of the charges faced in relation to sending indecent messages on the telecommunications network would not have passed the custody threshold individually or cumulatively. However, she dismissed the argument in relation to Leigh’s co-accused, who faced fewer charges.
Dame Julia said that the social enquiry report prepared on Leigh had identified that his ‘moral compass had become increasingly distorted’ but in granting leave to appeal, she was satisfied that he had a case that the sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.
She added that it would be in the public interest for the Court of Appeal to consider the sentencing principles in relation to some of sexual offences.