R v Bornes: Court of Appeal dismisses sentence appeal in indecent images distribution case

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has dismissed a sentence appeal brought by Romain Bornes, a French national convicted of six offences relating to the distribution, making and possession of indecent images of children, in a judgement handed down on 25 June 2026 ([2026] EWCA Crim 808).

Bornes, who was studying in the United Kingdom at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court in January 2026 before being committed to the Crown Court at Oxford for sentence. His Honour Judge Hassan Khan imposed a total custodial term of 28 months' imprisonment, following a notional pre-credit sentence of three and a half years, alongside a Sexual Harm Prevention Order of 10 years and a deprivation order covering his mobile phone.

The offending, which took place between July 2022 and July 2023 when Bornes was aged 20 and 21, involved possession of just under 4,000 indecent images spanning Categories A, B and C, of which 1,058 fell within Category A. He distributed 22 Category A images and three Category B images via online platforms and engaged in sexualised conversations with other individuals.

The Crown Court identified significant aggravating features, including the young age and vulnerability of the victims, a distribution period approaching one year, the volume of images held and the presence of moving images among those distributed. Against these, the judge weighed a substantial body of mitigation: Bornes had no previous convictions, expressed genuine remorse, had himself suffered sexual abuse as a child, held diagnoses of ADHD and anxiety, and had attended more than 87 sessions of psychotherapy as well as engaging with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.

On appeal, counsel for Bornes argued that the judge had erred in uplifting the lead offence of Category A distribution to account for the totality of the criminality, and that disproportionate weight had been afforded to aggravating features given that eight of the nine mitigating factors listed in the relevant Sentencing Council Guideline were present. It was further submitted that the resulting sentence ought to have been capable of suspension.

The Court, constituted by Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Jay and Mrs Justice Thornton, rejected those arguments. Delivering the judgement, Mrs Justice Thornton held that the judge was entitled to select Category A distribution as the lead count and to adjust the sentence upward in accordance with the totality principle. The Court declined to accept that possession of nearly 4,000 images was subsumed within the distribution offending, given that only 25 images had been distributed in total.

The judgement affirms that, where concurrent sentences are imposed for multiple offences, an upward adjustment to the lead offence will ordinarily be required and may properly take a sentence outside the guideline range appropriate for any single offence, in line with the Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality.

A procedural point arose from a drafting error in the charges, which purported to cover a period beginning in 2003 when Bornes was below the age of criminal responsibility. Applying principles from R v Gould [2021] EWCA Crim 447, the Court held that the error was analogous to a typographical mistake that could simply be disregarded by agreement. As all parties and the sentencing judge had proceeded throughout on a shared understanding of the true offending period, the convictions were not rendered unsafe.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

[2026] EWCA Crim 808 | Crown Court at Oxford | Sentenced: 12 February 2026 | Appeal determined: 25 June 2026