Extended Sentencing for Campaigns of Rape and Dangerousness Clarified: R v McNamara [2025] EWCA Crim 550

Introduction

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) delivered judgment on 3 April 2025 in R v McNamara ([2025] EWCA Crim 550). This case arose from a Solicitor General’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, challenging as unduly lenient the determinate sentences imposed on the respondent for a prolonged “campaign of rape” against his teenage stepdaughter, which resulted in pregnancy and continued sexual contact even after bail was granted. The facts engaged key provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in particular concerning rape, assault by penetration and sexual activity with a child family member), the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (publication restrictions), the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (offensive weapon), and the Sentencing Code 2020 (extended sentences and dangerousness). The principal issues before the Court of Appeal were:

Whether the original determinate sentence of 13 years was unduly lenient when measured against the “campaign of rape” guideline and aggravating features;
Whether the respondent satisfied the statutory criteria for dangerousness, warranting an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Code;
The correct application of totality, starting points and uplift for multiple counts and domestic abuse aggravators;
The proper interpretation of “campaign of rape” within the Definitive Guidelines for rape sentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court granted leave to the Solicitor General to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.
The appeal court held that the Recorder’s starting point and overall sentence were insufficient to reflect the gravity of repeated rapes, grooming, psychological harm and domestic abuse context.
The Recorder erred in principle by declining to find the respondent dangerous on the basis of a single victim; the Court of Appeal concluded the statutory dangerousness criteria were met.
An extended sentence was required: a notional determinate term of 20 years, reduced by 10% for the late guilty plea to 18 years, plus a 5-year extension period, producing a 23-year total sentence.
Individual concurrent terms on other counts were increased to reflect true culpability (e.g., count 2 from 7 to 10 years; count 7 from 11 to 16 years).
All ancillary orders (lifetime notification, restraining and sexual harm prevention orders) remain in force.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R v JH [2015] EWCA Crim 54; [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 59 – confirmed that multiple rapes of the same victim can constitute a “campaign of rape,” justifying departure from the category ranges.
R v GT [2024] EWCA Crim 961; [2024] 2 Cr App R 47 at [38] – emphasized that the term “campaign of rape” is one example of offending so severe it may warrant sentence outside standard ranges.
R v Hashi [1995] 16 Cr App R(S) 121; approval in Laverick for the principle that risk to one victim can satisfy dangerousness.
R v Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059; [2015] 2 Cr App R(S) 62 at [13] – post-CJA 2003 context for dangerousness: one potential victim suffices.
R v Smith [2017] EWCA Crim 252; [2017] 2 Cr App R(S) 2 at [25]–[26] – importance of examining provenance of offending for hidden dangerousness.
Attorney-General’s Reference (Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 16 – principles for section 36 referrals (unduly lenient test, deference to trial judge, exceptional circumstances requirement).
Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines: Rape (harm and culpability categories) and Domestic Abuse: Overarching Principles (aggravating features such as abuse of trust, control, impact on children).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two main strands: sentencing quantum and dangerousness.

1. Unduly Lenient Determinate Sentence

Starting Point and Uplift: The Recorder’s chosen starting point (15 years reduced to 13) was too low. The appellate Court fixed a notional 20-year term pre-trial, reduced by 10% for the guilty plea.
Campaign of Rape: This phrase captures repetitive, systematic rape of one victim. It justifies uplift beyond the upper end of category 1A where harm, planning and duration are extreme.
Aggravating Factors: Grooming, breach of trust, controlling behaviour (secret phone, financial control, isolation), blackmail/threats, pregnancy, location in the victim’s home, steps to prevent reporting—all demanded further uplift.
Totality: While concurrent sentencing respects totality, each concurrent term was increased to reflect its standalone gravity.

2. Dangerousness and Extended Sentence

Statutory Test: Under section 279 Sentencing Code, “dangerous offender” status arises where there is a significant risk of serious harm to the public from future specified offences.
Single Victim Suffices: It was erroneous to conclude the respondent could not be dangerous because only one victim was involved. Authority confirms risk to one potential future victim is sufficient.
Evidence of Risk: Pre-sentencing report, repeated breaches, lack of insight, continuing pursuit of the victim, high risk of recidivism—all pointed to dangerousness.
Extended Sentence Structure: A custodial term plus an “extension period” on licence protects the public post-release. Here, 18 years custody + 5-year extension = 23 years total.

Impact

This decision has significant ramifications for future sentencing of sexual offences:

It cements that a “campaign of rape” against a single victim can justify upward departures beyond the standard category ranges.
It clarifies that dangerousness under the Sentencing Code does not require multiple victims; risk of harm to any potential victim suffices.
It demonstrates rigorous appellate scrutiny of starting points, uplift for series offences and domestic abuse aggravators.
It emphasizes the necessity of extended sentences where clear evidence shows high recidivism risk, even absent prior convictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Campaign of Rape”: A structured, repeated pattern of rape against one victim over time. It elevates harm and culpability into the highest sentencing category and can justify sentences outside guideline ranges.
Extended Sentence: A two-part sentence: a custodial term followed by an extension (licence) period. Under section 279 of the Sentencing Code, it protects the public after release where the offender is dangerous.
Dangerousness Test: The court must assess whether the offender poses a “significant risk” of serious harm to the public from further specified offences. One potential victim is enough to satisfy the test.
Totality Principle: Concurrent sentencing must reflect the overall criminality without inflating the aggregate punishment unjustly.

Conclusion

R v McNamara [2025] EWCA Crim 550 establishes critical sentencing principles for lengthy sexual offending campaigns and the proper application of dangerousness criteria. The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that:

Systematic, repeated rape of a vulnerable victim (“campaign of rape”) demands a starting point and uplifts well beyond standard guideline ceilings.
An offender’s risk to future victims, even if only one, can satisfy the threshold for extended sentencing under the Sentencing Code.
Sentencing judges must rigorously address aggravating features such as grooming, abuse of trust and domestic context, and explicitly apply the dangerousness framework where risk factors are present.

These clarifications will guide lower courts in calibrating appropriate sentences for the most serious sexual offences involving prolonged abuse and significant risk of recidivism.