R v David Lee Salisbury

This case concerned an appeal against a nine-year sentence imposed on David Lee Salisbury for two counts of sexual activity with a child.

TLDR:

• David Lee Salisbury was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child.
• The offenses took place in 2006 when the victim was 14 years old.
• He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, which he appealed.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in the initial judgment.

On 10 August 2023, following a trial in the Crown Court at Leeds, David Lee Salisbury was convicted of two offenses of sexual activity with a child. The trial was presided over by Mr. Recorder Khan KC and a jury. Salisbury, aged 43 at the time of conviction, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. Ancillary orders, including a Restraining Order and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, were also imposed.

The offenses occurred in 2006 when the victim, referred to as V, was 14 years old, and Salisbury was 27. V lived near Salisbury and his partner, XA. Salisbury began sending text messages to V after obtaining her number from XA's phone. The relationship became physical, culminating in two instances of sexual activity at Salisbury's address.

In January or February 2006, Salisbury had sex with V by removing her school uniform and penetrating her vagina without protection, ejaculating inside her. In another instance, he led V to the bathroom, turned on the shower, and again penetrated her without protection, ejaculating inside her.

V reported the incidents to the police on 10 May 2021, leading to Salisbury's arrest and subsequent conviction. Salisbury had a history of 74 convictions, primarily for road traffic offenses and breaches of court orders, but no prior sexual offenses.

During sentencing, the Recorder applied the relevant guidelines, noting the significant age disparity and grooming behavior. The offenses were classified as category 1 harm with culpability level A, warranting a starting point of five years' custody. Aggravating factors included the lack of protection during sexual activity. The Recorder emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the lack of substantial mitigation.

Salisbury appealed, arguing that the Recorder had erroneously treated the offenses as involving force and had failed to adequately consider the principle of totality. The Court of Appeal found no merit in these arguments, stating that the Recorder had correctly assessed the offenses and the sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

Additionally, the Court of Appeal noted an error regarding the statutory surcharge, which was incorrectly imposed given the age of the offenses. The surcharge was not recorded on the official record, reflecting compliance with the law.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeal refused Salisbury's renewed application for leave to appeal.

Legal representatives: Non-Counsel Application

Judicial Panel: Lady Justice Whipple DBE, Mrs. Justice Farbey DBE, Mr. Justice Wall

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 551