Clarifying the Youth‑Maxima Ceiling and Permissible Use of Adult Guideline Starting Points in Historic Child‑Perpetrated Sexual Offences

Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision in VPT, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 1187, delivered on 2 September 2025 by Mr Justice Pepperall. The case concerned sentencing for historical sexual offences committed in the 1970s by the appellant when he was a teenager, against two young nephews. Half a century later, the appellant (now 66) pleaded guilty to five counts of indecent assault on a male contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and received an immediate custodial sentence of 21 months.

The central issues on appeal were:

• Whether the sentencing judge erred in law by effectively using maximum sentences as starting points for each offence.
• Whether, in light of the offender’s age at the time of the offences, the passage of time, his subsequent law‑abiding life, and other mitigating features, the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or should have been suspended.

The appeal engages a complex intersection of six Sentencing Council guidelines and the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 on how courts must approach sentencing where historic sexual offences were committed by a child or young person. Anonymity directions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied throughout, given the family connections between the parties.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence. It held that the recorder had correctly:

• Applied the framework in R v Ahmed, requiring courts to sentence by reference to current guidelines but to cap the ultimate sentence by the maximum that could have been imposed on an offender of the appellant’s age at the time of the offences (the “youth‑maxima ceiling”).
• Identified the modern equivalent offence (sexual assault of a child under 13) and placed the offending within category B2 (starting point 2 years, range 1–4 years) to reflect the sustained, non‑penetrative but serious nature of the abuse.
• Built a sentence structure that reflected multiple victims by imposing concurrent terms for the counts relating to the older nephew and a short consecutive term for the count relating to the younger nephew, applying 20% credit for late guilty pleas.
• Concluded that, notwithstanding the passage of five decades, the seriousness of the repeated offending against two children justified immediate imprisonment rather than suspension.

The court rejected the submission that the judge had impermissibly used maximum sentences as starting points. While acknowledging that an adult starting point would not have been appropriate for a single historic offence committed by a teenager, the Court held it was legitimate here—given the sustained, multi‑episode nature of the offending—to use adult starting points to assess seriousness, provided the final sentence respected the youth‑maxima ceiling dictated by Ahmed. The resulting 21‑month term was within the proper range and not manifestly excessive.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment centrally relies on R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281. Ahmed establishes two key propositions for historic sexual offences committed by a child or young person:

• Current sentencing regime applies: Courts must sentence in accordance with current sentencing guidelines, identifying the modern equivalent offence(s) and assessing culpability/harm by “measured reference” to the applicable offence‑specific guideline.
• Youth‑maxima ceiling: Whatever the offender’s present age, when the offending was committed by a child, the court should ordinarily limit the sentence to the maximum that could have been imposed at the time on an offender of that age. In Ahmed, the Court also explained how to translate historic youth disposals into modern custodial equivalents (e.g., 2 years’ Borstal training—formerly with release at around the halfway point—can be reflected by a modern sentence of approximately 4 years’ imprisonment).

VPT does not depart from Ahmed; rather, it consolidates and clarifies its application in a course‑of‑conduct case with multiple victims and numerous incidents. Specifically, VPT confirms:

• It is permissible to use adult guideline starting points to capture the gravity of a sustained pattern of historic offending even if the offender was a child at the time, provided the ultimate sentence remains within the youth‑maxima ceiling.
• The court may mark a second victim with a consecutive term even within the youth‑maxima framework, applying totality.
• A lengthy period of subsequent good character does not necessarily justify suspension where seriousness warrants immediate custody.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal endorsed the sentencing judge’s navigation through six distinct Sentencing Council guidelines:

• Historic Sexual Offences: sentence under current law and guidelines; identify modern equivalent; do not exceed the statutory maximum at the time of offending; and, crucially (per Ahmed), respect the youth‑maxima ceiling where the offending was by a child.
• Offence‑Specific Guideline for the modern equivalent: here, sexual assault of a child under 13 (maximum 14 years), with harm/culpability leading to a B2 categorisation (starting point 2 years; range 1–4 years).
• Sentencing Children and Young People: applied notwithstanding the offender’s current adult age; requires the court to have regard to age/maturity at the time of offending and the maximum youth disposals then available.
• Specific guideline for sexual offences committed by children and young people.
• Reduction for guilty pleas: 20% credit was given for late pleas that still avoided trial and spared the victims giving evidence.
• Imposition Guideline: consider whether custody is unavoidable; if so, whether suspension is appropriate.

Applying this matrix, the Court endorsed the following steps:

• Modern equivalence and category: The judge selected sexual assault of a child under 13 as the modern equivalent and assessed the offending as category B2. The categorisation reflected non‑penetrative but repeated assaults against a child, including progression to touching beneath clothing, coercive elements (“keep quiet”), exploitation of opportunity when entrusted with care, and the psychological impact manifested years later.
• Youth‑maxima ceiling (Ahmed): At age 14 (count 2), the historic maximum was a three‑month detention centre order; at age 15 (counts 4, 6, 8, 10), the maximum was 2 years’ Borstal training (treated as equivalent to about 4 years’ modern custody). The Court confirmed this ceiling controlled the permissible outcome.
• Use of adult starting points to reflect sustained seriousness: The Court acknowledged that an adult starting point would not suit a single historic offence by a teen. But here, given the large number of incidents over time against the older nephew—with around half involving beneath‑clothing contact—the recorder was entitled to take count 8 as the “lead count” and adopt the adult B2 starting point of 2 years to calibrate seriousness before applying age‑related mitigation and the youth‑maxima ceiling.
• Aggregation, concurrency, and totality: The judge lawfully imposed concurrent terms for the four counts involving the older nephew (12 months each for counts 4, 6, 10; 19 months for count 8 post‑plea) and added a short consecutive term (2 months post‑plea; 3 months after trial) for the younger nephew to mark the second victim, consistent with totality principles.
• Mitigation versus seriousness: The recorder accorded weight to late guilty pleas, the appellant’s otherwise good character and industrious life over five decades, health issues, and the fact that he himself had been abused as a child. However, the seriousness of repeated offences against two vulnerable children over a significant period—and the exploitation of trust and pressure to stay silent—meant immediate custody was justified.
• Suspension: Although there were no penetrative offences and considerable positive mitigation from the passage of time, the sustained nature and multiplicity of victims allowed the judge to conclude that only immediate custody was appropriate. The Court of Appeal agreed.

On the defence submission that the judge had wrongly treated historical maxima as starting points, the Court clarified that:

• The statutory maximum for indecent assault under the 1956 Act was 10 years (adult), but Ahmed requires the court to cap the sentence by reference to what could have been imposed on a child of the offender’s age at the time: here, 3 months (age 14) and 2 years’ Borstal training (age 15), the latter reflected as approximately 4 years’ modern custody.
• The recorder did not start at maximums; he used adult guideline starting points to measure seriousness for the sustained course of conduct, and then landed at sentences well below the youth‑maxima ceiling, including a 3‑month (post‑trial) equivalent for the count committed at age 14.

Impact

VPT will be cited for several clarifications significant to the sentencing of historic sexual offences where the offender was a child at the time:

• Dual‑anchor approach affirmed: Courts may use adult offence‑specific guideline starting points to assess the gravity of sustained historic offending by a child offender, while the ultimate sentence must remain within the youth‑maxima ceiling (ordinarily, the maximum that could have been imposed at the time on an offender of that age).
• Consecutive terms to reflect multiple victims: Even within the youth‑maxima ceiling, courts may add a short consecutive term to ensure each victim is marked, applying totality and not double‑counting features already reflected elsewhere.
• Immediate custody despite long lapse: A blameless, productive adult life over decades, health difficulties, and evidence of former victimisation may not overcome the need for immediate custody where historic offending is repeated, serious, and involved coercion or abuse of trust. Suspension is not the default simply because of the passage of time.
• Practical guidance for advocates: VPT underscores the need for careful mapping of historic offences to modern equivalents, explicit identification of youth maxima and their modern custodial equivalents (e.g., Borstal training ≈ 4 years’ imprisonment), and principled submissions on concurrency/consecutivity to mark individual victims while maintaining totality. The Court’s commendation of a high‑quality sentencing note is a reminder of counsel’s role in navigating complexity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Historic sexual offences: Even if the offences pre‑date current legislation, courts sentence under today’s regime. But they cannot exceed the statutory maximum in force at the time of the offence. Where the offender was a child at the time, Ahmed adds that the court should ordinarily cap the sentence by the maximum that could then have been imposed on a child of that age.
• Modern equivalent offence: Courts re‑classify historic conduct to the most apt modern offence to use current guidelines (here, sexual assault of a child under 13).
• “Measured reference”: A phrase in the historic offences guideline meaning the court should use (but not be straitjacketed by) the modern guideline as a tool for gauging harm and culpability, adapting as needed for historical context and youth.
• Category B2 (sexual assault of a child under 13): A matrix cell combining harm category 2 and culpability B, producing a starting point of 2 years and a range of 1–4 years for a single offence before adjustments for aggravating/mitigating factors, totality, and youth.
• Youth disposals in the 1970s: “Detention centre orders” (short, sharp shock) and “Borstal training” (longer training/internment for youths). Ahmed indicates that 2 years’ Borstal training—historically with early‑release norms—can be reflected by around 4 years’ modern imprisonment for equivalency purposes.
• Credit for guilty plea: Up to one‑third reduction for a plea at the first reasonable opportunity; later pleas attract lesser discounts. Here, 20% was appropriate because the pleas came after the PCMH but still avoided trial.
• Concurrent vs consecutive sentences and totality: Concurrent terms apply where offences form part of the same incident or course; consecutive terms may be used to mark distinct victims or episodes. The “totality principle” ensures the overall sentence is just and proportionate.
• Suspension: Even when a custodial term is justified, the court must ask whether the sentence can be suspended, considering factors like seriousness, risk, rehabilitation prospects, and the interests of justice. Serious, repeated sexual offending against children can warrant immediate custody even after a long, offence‑free period.
• Anonymity: The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 prohibits publication of details likely to identify victims of sexual offences during their lifetimes. This case proceeded under a cipher to preserve anonymity.
• Ancillary orders: Notification requirements (commonly called “sex offender registration”) and restraining orders may be imposed consistently with statute; they were not the subject of this appeal.

Conclusion

VPT, R v confirms and refines the Ahmed framework for sentencing historic sexual offences committed by a child. The Court of Appeal approves a dual‑anchor methodology:

• Use current offence‑specific guidelines—even adult starting points where necessary—to gauge the seriousness of sustained, multi‑episode abuse; but
• Confine the final sentence within the youth‑maxima ceiling, i.e., the maximum that could have been imposed for an offender of the appellant’s age at the time, translated into a modern custodial equivalent.

The judgment also makes clear that:

• A separate victim may be marked by a short consecutive sentence, consistent with totality, even in historic youth‑offending cases.
• The passage of decades and post‑offence good character do not automatically justify suspension; seriousness can make immediate custody inevitable.

In practical terms, VPT provides a clear, structured roadmap for courts and advocates: identify modern equivalents; apply the current guideline with careful attention to harm and culpability; take account of age and maturity at the time; check the youth‑maxima ceiling; calibrate concurrency and consecutivity to reflect distinct victims; and rigorously consider suspension under the Imposition Guideline. The outcome—a 21‑month immediate custodial term—was held to be well within the permissible range. VPT will therefore stand as a reference point for the principled application of Ahmed in complex, multi‑count historic sexual offence cases involving child offenders.