Rex vs Darren Hugh Hollywood

This case involved an appeal by Darren Hugh Hollywood against a 30-month imprisonment sentence for making and distributing indecent photographs of children.

TLDR:

• Darren Hugh Hollywood appealed against his 30-month imprisonment sentence.
• He was convicted of making and distributing indecent images of children.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence.

On 26th January 2023, police officers arrested Darren Hugh Hollywood at his home in Bognor Regis. Various electronic items were seized, including an iPhone and iPad containing indecent images of children. The images included 185 category A, 123 category B, and 217 category C images, with some being moving images. The creation dates of the images ranged from 17th February 2013 to 30th January 2023.

Data from the iPhone revealed conversations between Hollywood and an individual named 'Paul', where both expressed a sexual interest in children. On 28th September 2021, Hollywood sent several indecent images to 'Paul', including two category A images. Hollywood admitted his actions during the police interview, attributing them to being in a 'bad place' due to alcohol influence and personal issues.

In sentencing, the judge noted Hollywood's lack of relevant previous convictions but highlighted the seriousness of the offences. The judge took count 8, involving the distribution of images to 'Paul', as the lead offence. Aggravating factors included the use of security software, the young age and vulnerability of the children, the distress depicted in the images, and the duration over which Hollywood possessed the images.

The judge considered mitigating factors such as Hollywood's remorse, his work with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, the limited distribution of images, and the absence of previous similar offences. The notional sentence after trial was set at 40 months, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in a 30-month imprisonment sentence on count 8, with concurrent sentences on other counts.

Hollywood's appeal argued that the 40-month notional sentence was excessive and that the sentence should have been suspended considering his personal circumstances. However, the Court of Appeal found no error in the judge's approach, noting the aggravating factors justified the sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence, concluding that it was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Legal representatives: Mr. Z Ahmed for the appellant.

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

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 591