R v ACP [2025] EWCA Crim 1140: Court of Appeal Mandates an Express “Notional Adult Overall Sentence” Followed by Youth/Vulnerability Discount at the Totality Stage

Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v ACP [2025] EWCA Crim 1140, a sentencing appeal concerning grave intra-familial sexual offences committed by the appellant when he was a child, but sentenced as an adult. The judgment clarifies the methodology sentencing judges must follow when determining the global sentence for historic sexual offending by defendants who were under 18 at the time of the crimes but are sentenced later in adulthood.

The appellant, aged 26 at the time of the appeal, was convicted in January 2024 at the Crown Court at Sheffield of multiple sexual offences committed between 2011 and 2015 against his younger stepbrother, who was aged 6–9 during the offending. The appellant was aged 12–16. In March 2024, the sentencing judge imposed an 11-year term of imprisonment, taking count 7 (rape of a child under 13 when the appellant was 16) as the lead count and making the other sentences concurrent. The appeal focused not on the individual sentences per count (which the Court of Appeal found unassailable) but on the way the judge fixed the overall term at 11 years at the totality stage without explaining the calculation.

Key issues included: (i) the proper approach to sentencing adults for offences committed as children; (ii) the application of the Sentencing Council’s Overarching Principles Guideline: Sentencing Children and Young People and the sexual offences guideline for children; (iii) how R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 should be applied at the global (totality) stage; and (iv) the relevance of the appellant’s vulnerabilities, including Autism Spectrum Condition, Mild Intellectual Disability, and depression, as later reported by a psychologist (Dr Foster).

At the outset, the Court reaffirmed the lifelong anonymity provisions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 as applicable to the victim in this case.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the structure and quantum of the individual sentences on each count, including the discounts applied to reflect the appellant’s youth at the time of each offence.
However, it found the final global sentence of 11 years on the lead count (count 7) to be “manifestly excessive” because the judge had not explained how the overall term was derived at the totality stage.
The Court set out the correct method: the judge should first state the overall term that would have been imposed had the offender been an adult (a “notional adult overall sentence”), and then explain the reduction applied to reflect the offender’s age at the time of the offences and any particular vulnerabilities.
Applying that method (and an alternative route using the steps in Ahmed and the Sentencing Council guidelines), the Court concluded the correct overall term was 9 years’ imprisonment, not 11. The Court quashed the 11-year sentence and substituted 9 years on count 7; all other concurrent sentences remained unchanged.
The Court also observed that arguments suggesting a non-custodial outcome in a case of this seriousness were “hopelessly unrealistic.”

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The central authority was R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, which provides the framework for sentencing defendants as adults for sexual offences committed when they were children. The Court in ACP emphasized:

The requirement to have regard to both the Overarching Principles Guideline: Sentencing Children and Young People and the specific Guideline for Sexual Offences by children.
The five-step approach under the children’s sexual offences guideline (assess seriousness; consider aggravation; consider personal mitigation; apply any guilty plea reduction; then conduct a Step 5 review, including consideration of adult equivalence and indicative youth discounts).
The indicative range that for those aged 15–17, a sentence “broadly within the region of half to two thirds of the adult sentence” may be appropriate, with larger reductions for those under 15. This is a guide, not a formula, and must not be applied mechanistically.

The appellant also relied on R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596, but the Court stated that “ZA adds nothing” to Ahmed for present purposes, reinforcing Ahmed as the leading authoritative framework.

Separately, the Court reaffirmed the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 anonymity regime, ensuring that publications do not identify the victim during their lifetime. While not novel, the explicit reaffirmation underscores the continued vigilance courts expect in cases of sexual offending.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be grouped into three main strands:

a) Correctness of the per-count sentences

The judge identified the appropriate guideline category for each offence (category 3A under the Sexual Offences Guidelines). She applied age-based reductions aligned with the Children Guideline:

Counts 1–2 (causing/inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity): notional adult sentence around 4 years reduced to 16 months per count due to the offender’s younger age at the time.
Counts 3–4 (oral rapes): notional adult sentence around 9 years reduced by about 50% to 4.5 years per count, reflecting the appellant’s age (around 15).
Counts 5–7 (anal rapes): starting point 10 years per count reduced by one-third to 6 years 8 months, reflecting offending at ages 15–16, and the guidance that older children often attract a half-to-two-thirds adult comparator (with fine-tuning for personal circumstances).

The Court found no error in these individual calibrations. The judge had faithfully applied the relevant guideline logic for youth discounts on a count-by-count basis.

b) Error at the global totality stage

The difficulty arose only at the final step. Having identified count 7 as the lead offence (as the appellant was 16 at that point and the offending was the most serious), the judge imposed 11 years to reflect the totality of criminality but did not explain how that figure was reached. The Court emphasized that at the totality stage judges must:

Either expressly identify the overall sentence that would have been imposed had the offender been an adult (the “notional adult overall sentence”), and then state the degree of reduction applied for the offender’s age at commission and any vulnerabilities; or
Follow, and transparently apply, the Ahmed/Children’s Sexual Offences guideline steps through to the Step 5 review, including consideration of adult equivalence and indicative youth discounts.

Transparency is essential to avoid arbitrariness and to permit meaningful appellate scrutiny. The absence of an articulated calculation rendered the 11-year figure vulnerable.

c) Recalibration to 9 years via two legitimate routes

The Court used two routes to arrive at the same conclusion—9 years overall:

Route 1 (Hypothetical contemporaneous sentencing): Had the appellant been tried shortly after the last offence (at age 17–18), a judge would likely have fixed an adult overall sentence around 16 years to reflect the scale, persistence, escalation, and seriousness (including multiple penetrative rapes and grooming). Applying substantial reductions for the offender’s age and his vulnerabilities would reduce that to around 9 years.
Route 2 (Ahmed five-step method):
- Step 1 (seriousness): these were penetrative offences involving coercion/exploitation—plainly crossing the custody threshold.
- Step 2 (aggravation): numerous serious offences; offending over years; escalating conduct; grooming; significant age disparity (initially double the victim’s age; at count 7, appellant 16, victim 9).
- Step 3 (mitigation): substantial personal mitigation based on Dr Foster’s report—Autism Spectrum Condition, Mild Intellectual Disability, and depression—warranting a meaningful reduction.
- Step 4 (guilty plea): none—so no reduction.
- Step 5 (review/adult equivalence): prior to mitigation, a term around 11–12 years would be justified; taking personal mitigation and youth age-discounts to the fore, the correct figure is around 9 years.

Both routes transparently justify 9 years, and both comply with Ahmed and the Sentencing Council guidance.

3) The Role of Personal Vulnerabilities and Expert Evidence

Post-permission, the Court received a comprehensive psychological report from Dr Foster diagnosing Autism Spectrum Condition, Mild Intellectual Disability, and Recurrent Depressive Disorder. The Court accepted the summary of conclusions and treated the vulnerabilities as genuine mitigation affecting culpability and hence sentence length. Importantly, the report did not link denial of the offending to these diagnoses. The Court assessed future risk as low-to-moderate, with protective factors present, and found no evidence that ASC with Mild ID created specific risks of future offending in this case.

4) Observations on Advocacy and Realism

The Court noted that defence submissions at first instance suggesting non-custodial disposal were divorced from reality. In cases involving multiple penetrative sexual offences against a very young child, immediate custody is inevitable. The Court’s frank observation serves as practical guidance: advocates must grapple candidly with guideline thresholds and the likely sentencing outcomes to assist the court productively.

5) Legal Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

This decision does not rework the underlying principles in Ahmed; rather, it clarifies and insists on a disciplined and explicit articulation at the totality stage. The key practical effects are:

Sentencing judges must now expressly identify a notional adult overall sentence before applying youth and vulnerability reductions—or else transparently apply the Ahmed Steps through to Step 5.
Global sentences will require reasoned explanation, not only per-count analysis. This improves transparency, consistency, and appellate oversight.
Personal vulnerabilities (ASC, Mild ID, depression) remain highly relevant to culpability and overall term, but denial alone will not be attributed to such conditions unless supported by evidence.
Advocacy must be anchored in realistic engagement with the guidelines: immediate custody cannot be seriously contested where the facts plainly meet the threshold (e.g., coerced penetrative offending against a prepubescent child, repeated over years).
ZA is unlikely to furnish additional arguments where Ahmed already governs the terrain; practitioners should focus on Ahmed and the Sentencing Council material.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality principle: When sentencing for multiple offences, courts ensure that the overall sentence is just and proportionate to the total criminality. It avoids double-counting and prevents the sum of parts from becoming excessive relative to the whole.
Notional adult overall sentence: A hypothetical sentence indicating what the court would impose if the offender had been an adult at the time. It provides a benchmark from which age- and vulnerability-based reductions are applied.
Youth discount: Reflects reduced culpability, immaturity, and greater capacity for change of child offenders. For those aged 15–17, the guideline indicates around half to two-thirds of an adult sentence may be appropriate, with greater reductions for those under 15. This is guidance, not a fixed formula.
Children Guideline and Children’s Sexual Offences Guideline: Sentencing Council documents that set the approach for sentencing children/young people, including specific steps for sexual offending by children.
Category 3A (Sexual Offences Guidelines): A classification used in adult sexual offence guidelines, reflecting particular harm and culpability features. Here, it provided the adult starting points before youth reductions were applied.
Concurrent vs consecutive sentences: Concurrent sentences run at the same time (so the longest term often drives the effective sentence), while consecutive sentences run one after the other. Here, the judge made the per-count terms concurrent and treated count 7 as the lead sentence reflecting totality.
Manifestly excessive: An appellate standard indicating that a sentence is plainly too high given the facts and applicable law/guidelines. It warrants appellate intervention.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 anonymity: A lifelong prohibition on publishing details likely to identify a victim of a sexual offence, reaffirmed by the Court in this case.

Practical Guidance Drawn from ACP

For sentencers:
- Undertake careful per-count guideline analysis and youth reductions.
- At totality, articulate: (1) the notional adult overall sentence; (2) the reductions for age at offending and personal vulnerabilities; and (3) why the final figure is proportionate to the overall criminality.
- Explicitly address aggravating features (prolonged offending; escalation; grooming; age disparity) and personal mitigation (neurodevelopmental and cognitive factors).
For advocates:
- Structure submissions around Ahmed and the Children’s Sexual Offences guideline steps; present an adult comparator and reasoned youth/vulnerability discounts.
- Avoid untenable non-custodial proposals in serious penetrative child sex cases; focus instead on principled, evidence‑based mitigation.
- Where appropriate, obtain robust expert evidence on neurodevelopmental conditions and cognitive functioning, while maintaining realism about their impact on culpability.

Conclusion

R v ACP reinforces and operationalizes the Ahmed framework by requiring transparent articulation at the totality stage. Sentencers must either first specify a notional adult overall sentence and then apply youth/vulnerability reductions, or methodically work through the five steps of the Children’s Sexual Offences guideline to arrive at a principled final figure. On the facts, both methods converged on an overall term of 9 years. The Court’s intervention underscores the need for reasoned explanations of the global sentence, beyond accurate per-count analysis.

The decision provides a clear roadmap for future cases involving adults being sentenced for offences committed as children—particularly serious, prolonged, and escalatory sexual offending with grooming and marked age disparity. It strengthens transparency, ensures proportionate outcomes, and emphasizes the meaningful role of personal vulnerabilities in calibrating culpability and sentence length, while maintaining realism about custodial thresholds in cases of this gravity. Finally, the Court has again reminded practitioners and publishers that the anonymity of victims of sexual offences is a statutory imperative that must be rigorously observed.