Mandatory Life Sentences for Repeat Sexual Offences Under the Sentencing Act 2020

Introduction

Watson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 563 is a landmark decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down on 3 April 2025. The appeal arose out of the sentencing of Paul Watson, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape (anal, vaginal and oral) and a count of controlling or coercive behaviour, following a pattern of domestic violence and sexual abuse against his partner (“C”) between January and April 2024. On 14 January 2025, Watson received an extended determinate sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment. His Majesty’s Solicitor-General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer that sentence as unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and ultimately quashed the extended sentence, imposing a life sentence with a minimum term under the mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Summary of the Judgment

The sentencing judge had declined to impose life imprisonment, concluding that extended custody plus licence was sufficient to protect the public. On appeal, the Solicitor-General argued that, under section 285 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (dangerousness provisions) and, alternatively, under section 283 (repeat schedule offender provisions), life imprisonment was mandatory unless particular circumstances rendered it unjust. The Court of Appeal held that:

The judge misapplied section 285 by treating life as a “last resort” rather than imposing it when the statutory criteria were met;
Section 283(1) required a life sentence for a repeat offender with a prior Schedule 15 offence unless specific circumstances made it unjust;
No proper “particular circumstances” were identified to displace the mandatory life term;
Consequently, the 17-year sentence was quashed and replaced with life imprisonment, the minimum term fixed at eight years and 220 days (two-thirds of a notional 14-year term less remand credit).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334: established the distinction under the former Criminal Justice Act 2003 between discretionary life sentences (dangerousness, s. 224A) and mandatory life for a second schedule offence (s. 225). It confirmed that, in the dangerousness context, the court must regard life as the “sentence of last resort.”

2. R v A(A) [2014] EWCA Crim 2483 and R v Saunders [2013] EWCA Crim 1027: illustrate the application of dangerousness provisions, identifying patterns of escalating sexual violence, lack of remorse or insight, and high risk of serious harm as justifications for life where no alternative adequately protects the public.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning unfolded in three stages:

Dangerousness (section 285): Because Watson was over 21, had committed a Schedule 19 offence (rape, penetration), and posed a significant risk of further serious harm, the court “must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life” if the offence’s seriousness so justified. The sentencing judge wrongly treated life as discretionary rather than mandatory once criteria were met.
Repeat Schedule Offender (section 283): Watson’s prior conviction for sexual assault by penetration (a Schedule 15 offence) triggered section 283. That provision mandates life imprisonment for a second Schedule 15 offence unless “particular circumstances” tied to the index offence, prior offence or offender would make life unjust. The judge mentioned Watson’s age but gave no reason why that rendered life unjust; he did not identify any other displacing circumstance.
Failure to articulate reasons: The Court stressed that where Parliament has made life mandatory unless specific circumstances exist, a sentencing judge must expressly identify and explain those circumstances. Absent that reasoning, the mandatory life term must follow.

Impact

This decision solidifies the application of mandatory life sentences in two contexts: dangerous offenders under section 285 and repeat schedule offenders under section 283 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Key consequences include:

Sentencing judges must be meticulous in identifying any “particular circumstances” that might rebut the statutory mandate and explain reasons if they diverge from life imprisonment;
The ruling underscores the Court of Appeal’s readiness to correct leniency in sexual violence cases involving domestic abuse and repeat offending;
Defence and prosecution will now plan more carefully for arguments under sections 283 and 285, focusing on demonstrating or disproving the existence of “particular circumstances” or the adequacy of alternate sanctions;
Future appellants will find it more difficult to argue against life where the clear statutory thresholds are met.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Extended Determinate Sentence: A custodial term with a fixed custody period plus an extended licence period on release. Here, 14 years’ custody plus 3 years of licence.
Dangerous Offender (s. 285): An adult offender whose index offence is a scheduled sexual or violent crime and who poses a significant risk of further serious harm; life is mandatory if the offence’s gravity justifies it.
Repeat Schedule Offender (s. 283): A person with a prior conviction for a listed serious offence who commits another; life is mandatory unless “particular circumstances” render it unjust.
Notional Determined Sentence & Minimum Term: When life is substituted, the court calculates what the determinate term would have been (14 years here), takes two-thirds as a notional minimum, then discounts remand time to fix the actual tariff.

Conclusion

Watson v R [2025] EWCA Crim 563 establishes a firm precedent: once the statutory criteria for life imprisonment under sections 285 (dangerousness) or 283 (repeat offender) of the Sentencing Act 2020 are met, a custodial life sentence is mandatory absent well‐articulated, particular circumstances rendering it unjust. Sentencing judges must now demonstrate, in clear terms, why an alternative to life would fairly protect the public and accord with Parliament’s will. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to robust responses against domestic sexual violence and repeat predators.