Introduction

This commentary examines the decision in R v MCK [2025] EWCA Crim 1371, a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mrs Justice Heather Williams, refused leave. The case concerns multiple serious sexual offences against two sisters (C1 and C2), committed over several years by a trusted family friend, alongside convictions for making indecent images of children and possession of prohibited images.

The key appellate issues were:

• Whether the sentencing judge’s finding of “dangerousness” (i.e., a significant risk of further serious specified offences) was open to him on the evidence, and whether an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) was justified.
• Whether, given the applicant’s age (58) and lack of relevant previous convictions, a custodial term of 21 years (within a 26-year EDS comprising 21 years’ custody and 5 years’ extended licence) was excessive.

The Court upheld the findings and sentence, offering clear confirmation that age and an absence of prior relevant convictions are not determinative against a dangerousness assessment where the factual matrix evidences an entrenched sexual interest in children, sustained grooming, and denial.

The anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied, and the Court took care to avoid jigsaw identification by referring to the applicant as “MCK” and the complainants as “C1” and “C2”.

Summary of the Judgment

• The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children (Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1(1)(a)) and one count of possession of a prohibited image of a child (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss.62(1), 66(2)).
• He was convicted after trial of multiple sexual offences against two children under 13, including rape, attempted rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault.
• Sentencing (all concurrent): the lead count (Count 2 – multiple incident oral rapes of C1) attracted an Extended Determinate Sentence of 26 years (21 years’ custody + 5 years’ extended licence). Substantial concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts, including 11 years (Count 1), 8 years (Count 3), 7 years (Counts 6 and 7), and 3 years (various sexual assaults); the images offences attracted an 8-month term for the Category A images, concurrent.
• On appeal, two grounds were advanced: (i) the dangerousness finding was not reasonably open; and (ii) the custodial term (21 years) was excessive given age and lack of relevant antecedents.
• The Court held both grounds unarguable. It endorsed the trial judge’s reliance on the pre-sentence report (PSR), the sustained and targeted nature of the offending, the entrenched sexual interest in young girls, and the ongoing denial. It approved the categorisation and range placements under the Sexual Offences Guideline, the uplift for multiple offences and victims, and the application of totality.
• The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. No loss of time order was made.

Factual Background and Material Circumstances

Over a period from 2016 to 2022, the applicant, a longstanding family friend regarded by the children as a “grandfather figure,” groomed and sexually abused two sisters, C1 and C2, both under 13. The abuse began with C1 when she was 7 or 8, continuing until age 12. When C1 resisted further contact (Count 10), the applicant shifted his attention to C2. The offending came to light in 2023 following C2’s disclosure at school. A police search recovered a memory stick containing a large collection of indecent and prohibited images of children aged 4–12, including 260 Category A images.

The PSR assessed the applicant as presenting a High Risk of Serious harm to children, with an entrenched sexual interest in young females, offence-supportive attitudes, and a readiness to access and understand dark web sources of child abuse images. The report considered the absence of relevant prior convictions unrepresentative of the applicant’s offending behaviour, which had persisted for years.

Sentencing Framework and the Judge’s Approach

The sentencing judge identified the most serious offences as the rapes and attempted rape of C1 (Counts 1–3), with categorisation under the Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline as Harm Category 2 with Culpability A, due to:

• Significant degree of planning;
• Grooming of the victim;
• Very significant abuse of trust;
• Aggravation by ejaculation on some occasions.

The judge recorded the following guideline starting points and ranges:

• Counts 1–3 (rape/attempted rape of a child under 13): starting point 13 years, range up to 17 years.
• Counts 6–7 (assault by penetration of a child under 13): starting point 11 years, range up to 16 years.
• Counts 4, 5, 8, 9 (sexual assault of a child under 13): starting point 4 years, range up to 7 years.
• Offending against C2 (Counts 11–13) also categorised as 2A.

Taking Count 2 as the lead offence, the judge moved to the top of the range (17 years) to reflect the seriousness of the index offending and then increased further to reflect the multiplicity of offences and the presence of a second victim, allowing for the totality principle. The judge concluded that the “least” determinate sentence would have been 21 years. However, a determinate term alone would not sufficiently address the significant risk posed, and an extended licence period of 5 years was added for public protection, resulting in an EDS of 26 years.

Analysis

Precedents and Instruments Cited

The judgment does not cite specific case authorities. It applies the statutory and guideline framework implicit in the terms used:

• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (anonymity of victims of sexual offences).
• Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1(1)(a) (making indecent images of children).
• Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss.62(1), 66(2) (possession of prohibited images of children).
• Sentencing Council’s Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline (categorisation as 2A; starting points and ranges; aggravating factors).
• Dangerousness regime and Extended Determinate Sentences, with the Court confirming an extended licence for public protection where a determinate sentence would not sufficiently address risk.
• Totality principle (ensuring the overall sentence properly reflects the overall criminality across multiple counts and victims without becoming unjustly disproportionate).

Although no prior decisions are quoted, the Court’s approach aligns with orthodox principles for dangerousness assessments and the use of EDS where the risk of serious harm from further specified offences is significant.

Legal Reasoning

1) Dangerousness finding and EDS

The Court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the applicant posed a significant risk of committing serious specified offences in the future, notwithstanding his age and near-blank antecedents. Several features carried particular weight:

• The PSR’s high-risk assessment, grounded in the applicant’s entrenched sexual interest in young girls, his grooming behaviours, his knowledge of and access to child abuse material on the dark web, and his persistent denial of the contact offences.
• The sustained, targeted nature of the offending over many years, exploiting familial trust and isolating the victims in the applicant’s home.
• The judge’s explicit finding that he would, “if not forever, for a very long time,” pose a very high risk of reoffending similarly, especially towards girls under 13.

The Court made clear that age and a lack of relevant prior convictions do not outweigh such compelling indicators of future risk. That reasoning justifies an EDS: where a determinate custodial term will not adequately protect the public on release, the addition of an extended licence period is warranted.

2) Guideline categorisation and movement within range

The Court confirmed the categorisation of the rape and attempted rape counts as Harm Category 2 and Culpability A, given planning, grooming, and aggravated abuse of trust, with ejaculation as an aggravating feature. It approved placing the lead count at the top of the guideline range and then increasing to reflect the breadth of the criminality across multiple serious counts and two victims. This is a textbook application of the guideline structure for multiple serious sexual offences against children.

3) Totality and concurrency

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Even so, the Court endorsed a substantial upward adjustment of the lead count to capture the overall gravity and breadth of the offending. The careful balance struck—raising the lead sentence while applying concurrency and then imposing an extended licence—demonstrates principled use of the totality guideline to avoid a mechanistic “count-by-count” aggregation that could otherwise produce an unjustly crushing term or, conversely, understate the seriousness of multi-count child sexual abuse.

4) The link between images and contact offending

While the images offences were sentenced separately (and concurrently), the Court accepted, as did the PSR, a “very clear link” between the applicant’s collection of indecent images and his hands-on sexual offending. That connection is often probative of risk in sexual harm cases. Here, it contributed to the dangerousness assessment, supporting the conclusion that a determinate term would not sufficiently mitigate future risk without an extended licence period.

Impact and Significance

• Dangerousness assessments: The decision underscores that courts will give substantial weight to PSR findings, patterns of grooming, persistence of offending, offence-supportive attitudes, and denial. Age and a near-blank record are not determinative against an EDS where the factual matrix shows enduring deviant interest and real-world offending opportunities taken.
• Grooming within familial or quasi-familial relationships: Offences that exploit positions of trust—especially where a child regards the offender as a familial figure—will be treated as a “very significant and major aggravating factor.” Practitioners should expect movement to the upper end of guideline ranges in such scenarios.
• Multiple incident counts and multiple victims: Courts will properly reflect overall criminality by selecting a lead count, moving within (and, by way of upward revision consistent with the guideline’s structure) to capture the full extent of wrongdoing, while observing totality through concurrency and reasoned adjustments.
• Images offending as a risk indicator: Where analysis shows a collection featuring young children and the offender demonstrates knowledge of dark web networks for exchanging such material, that will weigh in assessments of future risk and the suitability of an EDS.
• Appeals against sentence: The decision illustrates the high threshold for renewed applications for leave where the sentencing judge has carefully applied the guidelines, articulated dangerousness on robust evidence, and explained the necessity for extended licence to protect the public.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Dangerousness: In sentencing law, “dangerousness” refers to a court’s assessment that an offender poses a significant risk of causing serious harm to members of the public through the commission of specified serious offences. If so, enhanced sentencing powers (like an Extended Determinate Sentence) may be used to protect the public.
• Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS): A composite sentence comprising a custodial term plus an extended period of licence. The extended licence allows risk management and recall if behaviour on release indicates the public remains at risk. Courts use EDS when a determinate sentence alone would not adequately protect the public.
• Totality principle: When sentencing multiple offences, courts ensure the overall sentence is just and proportionate to the total offending, neither unduly lenient nor “crushing.” They often achieve this via concurrent sentences, balanced by positioning the lead count appropriately within the guideline range.
• Multiple incident count: A single count that reflects repeated similar offending episodes. It can justify movement toward the top of a guideline range even though only one “count” is before the court, because it represents multiple acts.
• Guideline categorisation (e.g., 2A): Sentencing guidelines for sexual offences assess harm (category 1–3, or similar scale) and culpability (A–C). Harm Category 2 with Culpability A usually denotes significant harm and high culpability due to features like planning, grooming, use of trust, or other aggravation.
• Indecent image categories: Category A is the most serious, followed by B and C. Large numbers of Category A images, especially of very young children, are gravely aggravating and can be probative of risk.
• Jigsaw identification and anonymity: Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, victims of sexual offences have lifelong anonymity. Publishers must avoid including details that, taken together (the “jigsaw”), could identify a victim.
• Loss of time order: If an appeal is deemed unmeritorious, the Court of Appeal may order that the time spent in custody pending the appeal does not count toward the sentence. Here, despite refusing leave, the Court did not make a loss of time order.

Conclusion

MCK confirms, with practical clarity, that age and a lack of relevant previous convictions do not preclude a finding of dangerousness where the offending evidences an entrenched sexual interest in children, long-term grooming, exploitation of trust, and denial. In such cases, an Extended Determinate Sentence is apt when a determinate term alone would not adequately protect the public.

The decision is a careful application of the Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline, the totality principle, and the protective sentencing regime for dangerous offenders. It emphasises the centrality of the PSR and the factual context of grooming and misuse of familial-like trust. For practitioners, MCK is a strong reaffirmation that, in multi-count child sexual abuse cases with multiple victims and aggravating features, movement to the upper end of the guideline range for the lead offence, uplift to reflect overall criminality, and the imposition of an extended licence will be robustly supported on appeal when carefully reasoned at first instance.

Case Snapshot

• Citation: [2025] EWCA Crim 1371
• Judgment Date: 3 October 2025
• Applicant: “MCK” (anonymised)
• Offending: Multiple sexual offences against two girls under 13; indecent/prohibited images of children
• Lead Sentence: EDS of 26 years (21 years’ custody + 5 years’ extended licence) on Count 2
• Appeal Outcome: Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused; no loss of time order
• Key Holding: Age and lack of relevant previous convictions do not negate a dangerousness finding where evidence shows a sustained pattern of grooming, an entrenched sexual interest in children, and ongoing denial.