Aggregate Sentencing for Campaign of Child Rape: TMD v R [2025] EWCA Crim 463

Introduction

In TMD v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 463), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the proper approach to sentencing a serial child rapist whose abuse spanned six to seven years and resulted in at least 13 distinct incidents of vaginal rape. The appellant, anonymised as “TMD” under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, had been convicted by a jury at Manchester Crown Court of six counts of rape of a child under 13 years (Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.5(1)). He received a special custodial sentence of 27 years plus one year on licence (Sentencing Act 2020, s.278). By leave of a single judge, he appealed on the ground that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

Key issues:

• Whether a combined sentence of 27 years for at least 13 rapes of a single complainant was disproportionate;
• How to apply the Sentencing Council’s guidelines on child rape and the principle of totality when multiple offences are involved;
• The threshold for categorising serial child rapes as a “campaign of rape” and the appropriate starting points for sentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, with MR JUSTICE BRYAN presiding, dismissed TMD’s appeal. It affirmed that:

1. The appellant’s offences constituted high‐culpability, Category A and Category 2A child rapes, aggravated by grooming, lack of contraception, ejaculation and a resulting pregnancy.
2. The proper characterisation of over 13 rapes over an extended period was a “campaign of rape” justifying a sentence above the single‐offence starting point of 13 years.
3. Applying the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and the statutory principle of totality, a determinate sentence of 27 years with one year on licence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

Analysis

Precedents and Statutory Framework Cited

Although TMD did not rely heavily on prior case law, the court’s approach was grounded in:

• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Anonymity protections for victims of sexual offences.
• Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.5(1): Defines rape of a child under 13 as a strict liability offence.
• Sentencing Act 2020, s.278: Provides for “special custodial sentences” in cases of serious sexual or violent offences.
• Sentencing Council’s Child Rape Definitive Guideline: Categorises offences into levels of culpability (Category A factors such as grooming, planning, breach of trust) and harm (Category 2A for rape of very young children with significant harm, eg. pregnancy and termination).

The court also referenced the established principle that where there are multiple offences, each may attract its own starting point, but the overall sentence must be just, proportionate and respect totality.

Legal Reasoning

1. Culpability and Harm Categories: The sentencing judge correctly identified Category A (planning, grooming, breach of trust) and Category 2A (rape of a child under 13 with additional harm such as pregnancy and termination). Although Category 1 (the highest harm category) was reserved for extremely violent or sadistic offences, the sustained campaign and resulting trauma justified placement at the upper end of Category 2A.

2. Starting Points and Aggravation: A single Category 2A rape carries a starting point of 13 years (range 11–17 years). Here, there were at least 13 separate incidents, each independently grave. Significant aggravating features included lack of contraception, ejaculation, grooming over years and the victim’s pregnancy and termination at age 13.

3. Totality Principle: While each rape could justify a lengthy sentence, the court applied totality to avoid undue cumulation beyond a just and workable total. A 27‐year determinate sentence (plus licence) reflected the aggregated wrongdoing without being crushingly excessive.

4. Denial and Lack of Remorse: TMD’s persistent denial, even after indisputable scientific proof and trial verdicts, diminished any prospect of mitigation. His intellectual limitations did not reduce culpability or count in mitigation.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision clarifies that:

• A “campaign of rape” against a child can lawfully attract an aggregate sentence well above the range for a single offence, provided totality is respected.
• Sentences for serial child rape must reflect both the number of incidents and the cumulative psychological and physical harm.
• Denial of guilt and absence of remorse are legitimate aggravating factors that limit mitigating credit.
• Courts should identify appropriate Category A and Category 2A factors, then apply a measured totality adjustment rather than a rote multiplication of single‐offence sentences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Category A factors: Actions that increase culpability, such as premeditation, grooming, supplying drugs/alcohol and abusing a position of trust.
Category 2A harm: Significant psychological and physical injury to a very young child, including pregnancy and forced termination.
Totality principle: A sentencing rule that the overall sentence for multiple offences must be fair, proportionate and not unduly severe when the offences are viewed together.

Conclusion

TMD v R establishes that the court may impose an aggregate sentence for a series of rapes against a child that far exceeds the starting point for a single offence, so long as the total is proportionate under the totality principle. This judgment reinforces the Sentencing Council’s framework for child rape sentencing, emphasizes the weight to be given to grooming and long‐term campaigns of abuse, and confirms that persistent denial and lack of remorse are valid aggravating factors. It will guide sentencing in future cases of multiple child rapes, ensuring both consistency with guidelines and protection of the public and vulnerable victims.