Lambert v Rex: Clarifying the Totality Principle and Extended Sentences in Sexual Offence Cases

Introduction

In Lambert v Rex ([2025] EWCA Crim 137), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered an appeal against sentence for sexual offences, including two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. The appellant, who had been convicted following a jury trial, challenged the overall custodial term and the extended licence period imposed. The key issues before the court related to the classification of the offences within the sentencing guidelines, the consecutive nature of the sentences, and the application of the totality principle, especially in the context of a finding of dangerousness and the imposition of an extended determinate sentence.

The case involved two victims (C1 and C2), each of whom had experienced significant psychological harm after the incidents. Throughout the trial, the appellant maintained that the sexual activity had been consensual, but the jury rejected this defence. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides valuable guidance on how courts should approach consecutive sentences for sexual offences and carefully apply the totality principle when determining the final overall sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence of an extended determinate sentence totaling 24 years (comprising 18 years’ imprisonment and a 6-year extended licence period). Finding it “manifestly excessive,” the court reduced it to a 14-year custodial term with an extended licence period of 4 years (resulting in an overall extended determinate sentence of 18 years). Specifically, the court:

Found that the trial judge’s notional single sentences for each count were set too high.
Emphasized the significant mitigation present, including the appellant’s lack of relevant previous convictions and the fact he was relatively young with a family.
Stated that the reduction for totality did not sufficiently account for the fact that there were two victims and two separate but somewhat similar incidents.
Confirmed that the appellant was dangerous and that an extended determinate sentence for public protection was appropriate.

Ultimately, by reducing the notional starting points and applying a proper reduction for totality, the Court of Appeal held that a total custodial term of 14 years plus an extended licence period of 4 years was “just and proportionate” in the circumstances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the judgment did not explicitly cite specific earlier reported decisions by name, it is clear that the Sentencing Council’s Sexual Offences Guideline and general sentencing principles governed this appeal. The judgment implicitly references well-established case law that requires sentencers to:

Assess the appropriate category of harm and culpability by reference to the Sexual Offences Guideline for rape (and for sexual assault where relevant).
Ensure that the principle of totality is applied in cases involving multiple counts and multiple victims.
Consider an extended determinate sentence where dangerousness is found, in line with the relevant statutory provisions (notably sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 addressing extended sentences).

In deciding that the total sentence was too high, the Court of Appeal implicitly relied upon the well-established approach that courts must look at how the overall punishment, when adding multiple counts, reflects the total offending behavior and ensures it is proportionate. This approach is consistent with earlier Court of Appeal authority emphasizing fairness, proportionality, and the protection of the public.

Legal Reasoning

The core factors in the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeal were:

Categorization of Offences: The trial judge’s classification of the offences under the Sexual Offences Guideline was deemed correct in principle (2B for count 1, 2A for count 2, and 2B for count 5). However, the Court of Appeal found that the judge’s application of the starting points within those categories, before factoring in mitigation, was at the upper end of the guidelines and resulted in a term that was too high.
Mitigating Factors: The appellant’s personal circumstances, including his lack of relevant previous sexual offending, his age, and the effect of the conviction on his personal and professional life, warranted a reduction from the various starting points within the guidelines.
Totality Principle: Although multiple consecutive sentences favored a higher overall term, the Court of Appeal held that the judge’s only modest reduction for totality was insufficient. The principle of totality requires the court to ensure that, when sentences are stacked consecutively, the final figure fairly reflects the overall criminality rather than simply adding up individual offences.
Extended Determinate Sentence: The finding of dangerousness by the trial judge was upheld. However, once adjusted to the appropriate custodial terms, the overall extended sentence still needed to be proportionate. Hence, the custodial term was lowered and the extended licence periods were recalibrated to reflect the totality of the appellant’s offending.

Impact

This ruling is likely to have a notable impact on future multi-count sexual offence cases where sentences are imposed consecutively. It reiterates the importance of careful categorization in accordance with the Sexual Offences Guideline, emphasizes the need to acknowledge relevant mitigation, and strongly reinforces that multiple consecutive sentences necessitate a proper evaluation under the totality principle.

Sentencers across England and Wales can look to Lambert v Rex as a clear reminder that the desire to reflect the seriousness of multiple rapes or sexual offences can still be achieved without imposing manifestly excessive cumulative terms. Defendants who present significant mitigation, even in serious sexual offence contexts, should be given credit for such factors, so long as public protection is assured.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts are central to understanding this judgment:

Extended Determinate Sentence: A type of sentence given to “dangerous” offenders, usually comprising a custodial term plus an extended licence period. If a court finds an offender to pose a significant risk to the public, it can impose additional monitoring and restrictions even after the offender’s release.
Totality Principle: When sentencing an offender for multiple offences, courts must ensure the final overall sentence is fair and reflects all criminality involved, rather than merely adding up the sentences for each offence. This principle prevents unduly harsh cumulative terms.
Sexual Offences Guideline: A document prepared by the Sentencing Council that outlines the approach to be taken by judges in sentencing various sexual offenses, providing guidance on the relevant factors that influence harm, culpability, and sentence ranges.
Dangerousness: A court-made finding that the offender poses a significant risk of causing serious harm to the public through future offending. A finding of dangerousness often justifies imposing either a life sentence or an extended determinate sentence.

Conclusion

Lambert v Rex ([2025] EWCA Crim 137) serves as a pivotal decision clarifying the approach to consecutive sentencing for multiple sexual offences and reaffirming the totality principle in serious sexual crime cases. While the Court of Appeal confirmed the judge’s understanding of the gravity of these offences and agreed that an extended determinate sentence was warranted to protect the public, it found the overall custodial term of 18 years too severe.

This case illustrates the necessity of thoroughly grounding each sentence in the sentencing guideline’s framework, while ensuring that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences does not exceed what is commensurate with the totality of the criminal behavior. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal imposed a total extended determinate sentence of 18 years (14 years’ imprisonment plus 4 years extended licence), thus balancing the seriousness of the appellant’s offending with the mitigating factors and the overarching principle of proportionality.

The judgment reminds practitioners, trial judges, and defendants alike that, even in the most serious cases, strict adherence to sentencing guidelines and the principle of totality are core features of a fair and proportionate criminal justice system.