R v Andrews [2025] NICA 54: Consecutive Sentences Across Multiple Indictments and Parity of Attempted Rape with Rape — A Robust Totality Review in Multi‑Victim Online Sexual Offending

Reporting restriction reminder: The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies. Nothing should be reported that could identify the victims.

Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland’s judgment in The King v David John Andrews [2025] NICA 54, delivered ex tempore by Keegan LCJ (with Treacy LJ and Rooney J concurring). The decision addresses the sentencing architecture for a prolific campaign of sexual offending spanning many years and multiple victim cohorts: (i) a severely disabled adult victim (RG) subjected to repeated sexual abuse including specimen attempted rapes; and (ii) dozens of child victims across Northern Ireland, the wider UK and beyond, targeted through calculated online “catfishing”, coercion, distribution of sexual images, harassment and blackmail.

The renewed application for leave to appeal challenged a very substantial sentence: 27 years’ imprisonment coupled with a five‑year extended licence (an extended custodial sentence). The grounds pressed before the Court of Appeal were:

That imposing consecutive terms across three indictments was wrong in principle; and
That the total sentence was disproportionate, including that the 15‑year starting point used for the attempted rapes was too low/high and the uplift to 20 years was excessive, contrary to totality.

The Court rejected both grounds, upheld the sentencing judge’s methodology, and dismissed the appeal. In doing so, it reaffirmed important sentencing principles for campaigns of sexual offending, clarified when consecutive sentences across indictments are justified, and underscored that orchestrated attempted rapes of a particularly vulnerable victim can, in appropriate cases, be sentenced as severely as completed rape.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court endorsed the trial judge’s selection of the attempted rapes on RG as the “headline” offences, adopting a 15‑year starting point for a campaign of rape (by analogy) and increasing this to 20 years to reflect substantial aggravation (planning, orchestration, length, vulnerability, abuse of trust, recording and distribution of images, and cumulative degradation): paras [12]–[18].
Consecutive sentences across different indictments were upheld. Although the indictments shared thematic similarity (online sexual exploitation), the Court considered the nature and level of offending, the number and age of victims, and the separateness of the victim cohorts to justify consecutivity: paras [19]–[20].
On totality, the court found that the sentencing judge had stood back, expressly declined to sentence victim-by-victim (which would have yielded a manifestly excessive result), and instead arrived at an overall, proportionate package for bills 1 and 2 (12 years after plea), added to the headline sentence on bill 3. The overall 27-year custodial term with a five‑year extended licence was not manifestly excessive: paras [21]–[26].
The designation of the applicant as a dangerous offender stood unchallenged. The Court confirmed the effect of an extended custodial sentence (ECS): release is risk‑dependent via the Parole Commissioners at the half‑way point; if not safe, the custodial term may be served in full; thereafter the five‑year extended licence applies: para [27].
Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed: para [28].

Detailed Analysis

Factual and Procedural Background

The offences spanned three indictments. On bills 1 and 2, the applicant targeted child victims (some as young as eight) through calculated online deception, coercion, image extraction, threats, and distribution—conduct the Court accurately characterised not as “catfishing” but as sexual abuse, corruption, and intimidation. Bill 3 concerned RG, a woman in her early thirties with severe mental disability, abused over approximately seven years through repeated sexual assaults, specimen attempted rapes (vaginal and oral), and taking/distributing images. The applicant pleaded guilty to a large number of counts across the bills.

The trial judge (HHJ Miller KC) imposed an extended custodial sentence comprising 27 years’ imprisonment and a five‑year extended licence. The single judge refused leave; the renewed application focused on consecutive sentencing and totality (including the attempted rape headline sentence). The Court of Appeal adopted much of the single judge’s analysis and upheld the overall sentence.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

R v Kubik [2016] NICA 3: Treated as the primary guide for rape sentencing, including aggravating factors (para [17] quoted). Two key messages were drawn:
- Aggravating factors that can lift a sentence above starting points (planning, serious mental effect, further degradation, presence of children, history of assaults, etc.).
- Guidelines are not fixed tariffs. Sentencers may go outside the range if explained and proportionate, consistent with R v Molloy and Millberry (para [15] extracted).
R v DO [2006] NICA 7: Supports the principle that attempted rape may be treated with the same gravity as completed rape where culpability and harm demand it. The Court affirmed the applicability of that approach to the campaign of attempted rapes on RG.
R v Molloy [1997] NIJB 241 and R v Millberry and others [2002] 2 All ER 939: Emphasise that guideline starting points are aids, not tariffs; a holistic “stand back” assessment is required to reach the appropriate sentence in the round.
Hutton [2024] NICA 19, ZB [2022] NICA 69, Playfair [2024] NICA 21: Cited for the totality principle and structured methodology in multi‑offence sentencing.
R v Pacyno [2024] NICA 3: Reiterated here for the proposition that the online nature of sexual offending does not lessen its seriousness; it is a modern scourge demanding severe punishment.
R v Shaun Hegarty [2022] NICA 55: Confirmed the practical effect of an extended custodial sentence, including Parole Commissioners’ role and licence mechanics.

Legal Reasoning

1) The headline sentence for the attempted rapes

The Court agreed that the attempted rapes on RG formed the proper “headline” for sentencing. Treating the conduct as a campaign of attempted rapes justified the adoption of a 15‑year starting point (by analogy with campaign-of-rape guidelines), and the uplift to 20 years was warranted for several reasons:

Planning and orchestration beyond repetition: The conduct exhibited sustained manipulation and control, not merely multiple attempts (para [16]).
Vulnerability and abuse of trust: RG’s acute vulnerability—“utterly dependent on the care of those around her”—combined with the applicant’s gross abuse of trust, is an aggravator of the highest order (paras [9], [17]).
Recording and dissemination: Taking and distributing images added a further dimension of degradation, humiliation, and enduring harm (paras [9], [17]).
Length of offending: The abuse persisted for many years (para [16]).

Importantly, the Court expressly affirmed that attempted rape can properly attract sentences equivalent to completed rape where the overall culpability and harm justify parity, in line with R v DO (para [15]). This reinforces that the lesser legal label “attempt” does not automatically attenuate sentencing where the factual matrix is egregious.

2) Consecutive sentences across different indictments

The Court upheld consecutive terms across bills 1, 2 and 3. The justification rested on qualitative and quantitative differences between the indictments:

Distinct victim cohorts and gravity: Bill 2 involved more victims and younger victims, elevating seriousness relative to bill 1 (para [20]).
Different nature/level of offending: Though similar in theme (online sexual exploitation), the Court accepted that the indictments reflected sufficiently different criminality to merit distinct, additive punishment (paras [19]–[20]).
Measured approach within each bill: The trial judge did not stack sentences within bill 3 for the non‑headline counts; he took an overall view, limiting intrabill consecutivity to avoid undue cumulation (para [18]).

In substance, the Court endorsed a structured use of consecutive terms to ensure each cohort of victims—and each qualitatively distinct tranche of offending—was meaningfully reflected, while guarding against double counting.

3) Totality and proportionality

Applying the well‑established totality principle, the Court confirmed that the sentencing judge:

Consciously avoided an arithmetical, victim-by-victim aggregation that would have produced a manifestly excessive sentence (para [23]).
Instead adopted an “overall view” for bills 1 and 2, landing on 12 years post‑plea for that tranche, which the Court found was not excessive given the “persistent abuse and corruption of multiple victims who were young children” (para [23]).
Stood back to assess proportionality in the round, in line with Hutton, ZB, and Playfair, and the broader “art, not science” approach emphasised in Molloy/ Millberry (paras [21]–[22]).

The end result—27 years’ custody plus a five‑year extended licence—was held to be a justified societal response to a “prolific and chilling” catalogue of offending, including the particularly egregious conduct toward a severely vulnerable adult and a very large number of children (paras [24]–[26]).

4) Mitigation and dangerousness

The Court rejected the proposition that the applicant’s mental health or background provided any additional mitigation beyond what was already credited. Poor compliance with medication and voluntary cocaine use did not reduce culpability (paras [9], [10]).

The finding of dangerousness was “unimpeachable” (para [11]). The Court reiterated the mechanics of an extended custodial sentence: eligibility to be considered for release at half under Parole Commissioners’ scrutiny; potential to serve the full custodial term if risk remains; and a five‑year extended licence thereafter, with recall if breached (para [27]).

Clarified Principles Emerging from Andrews

Attempted rape can merit parity with completed rape: Where culpability and harm are comparable, and especially in a sustained, orchestrated campaign against a particularly vulnerable victim, courts may sentence attempted rapes at levels associated with completed rapes (DO affirmed).
Substantial uplifts above guideline “starting points” are permissible: Sentencers may move significantly above starting points where there is clear planning, prolonged duration, gross abuse of trust, severe vulnerability, and the recording/dissemination of images compounding harm (Kubik grounded; Molloy/Millberry method endorsed).
Consecutivity across indictments is proper where victim cohorts and gravity differ: Even if conduct is thematically similar (e.g., online exploitation), discrete indictments reflecting different cohorts and seriousness can justifiably attract consecutive terms, subject to a totality “stand back” check.
Structured totality for multi‑victim sexual offending: Sentencing should avoid rote per‑victim stacking where that would be “manifestly excessive”. Courts may take an “overall view” within related indictments and then assess whether additional consecutive time is needed for distinct cohorts/offending.
Online sexual abuse is not less serious: The Court reiterates its stance that internet‑facilitated child sexual exploitation is a “modern scourge” warranting severe punishment (Pacyno followed).
Dangerous offender ECS clarified: The decision restates, for practitioners and the public, the ECS release and recall framework and its public protection rationale (Hegarty applied).

Impact and Significance

For sentencing courts: Andrews supplies a coherent framework for complex, multi‑indictment sexual cases, legitimising:

Using a single, severe headline sentence for the gravest conduct (here, attempted rapes of a severely vulnerable victim) with principled uplifts for aggravation;
Imposing consecutive terms for distinct cohorts or qualitatively different offending, while avoiding intra‑bill over‑aggregation;
Performing an explicit totality cross‑check to ensure the overall package is proportionate.

For prosecutors: The case supports charging strategies employing specimen counts and multiple indictments to capture different cohorts, while anticipating a court’s need to reflect each cohort in the final sentence. It underscores the evidential importance of demonstrating planning, manipulation, technological facilitation, and image distribution as aggravation.

For defence practitioners: The judgment cautions against reliance on general mental health background without a robust causal link and compliance history. It confirms that early admissions and pleas remain the most potent mitigation—especially where the admissions extend beyond the authorities’ existing knowledge (para [9]). It also signals that challenges to consecutivity and totality must grapple with cohort distinctions and the court’s wide discretion in complex sexual sentencing.

For public protection policy: Andrews provides a clear restatement of ECS practice in Northern Ireland, balancing realistic prospects of release at half for safe offenders with the possibility of full‑term custody for continued risk, followed by an extended licence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Attempt vs completed rape in sentencing: “Attempt” is a separate offence label, but courts look at culpability and harm. Where an attempt involves similar culpability (e.g., repeated, planned, degrading conduct) and serious harm, it can be sentenced as seriously as a completed rape.
Headline sentence: In multi‑count cases, courts often identify the gravest offence(s) and set a “headline” sentence for them. Other counts are then structured around that, sometimes concurrently, sometimes consecutively, depending on distinct harm and culpability.
Consecutive vs concurrent: Concurrent sentences run at the same time; consecutive sentences are added end‑to‑end. Consecutivity is commonly used where offences are separate in time, place, or victim cohort, or reflect different criminality.
Totality principle: After constructing the sentence, the judge “stands back” to ensure the overall term is not crushing or disproportionate to the total criminality. If it is, the judge adjusts—often by running more terms concurrently or moderating uplifts.
Extended custodial sentence (ECS): Combines a custodial term with an extended licence. After serving half the custodial term, release depends on Parole Commissioners’ assessment of public protection. If risk remains, custody can continue up to the full term. On release, the offender is supervised on an extended licence and can be recalled if conditions are breached.
Aggravating factors in sexual offences: Planning, targeting vulnerable victims, abuse of trust, prolonged campaigns, recording and disseminating images, and causing severe psychological harm markedly increase seriousness.

Concluding Observations

Andrews is a significant confirmation and clarification of sentencing practice for high‑volume, multi‑victim sexual offending, particularly where online exploitation intersects with prolonged, orchestrated abuse of a severely vulnerable adult. The Court’s key contributions are threefold:

It re‑affirms that attempted rape, in a sustained and orchestrated campaign against an acutely vulnerable victim with gross abuse of trust and degradation, may properly be sentenced at levels comparable to completed rape.
It validates the selective use of consecutive sentences across distinct indictments to ensure different victim cohorts and qualitatively different offending are adequately reflected, while keeping a firm hand on totality to avoid manifest excess.
It restates the seriousness of internet‑facilitated sexual offending and the public‑protection logic of extended custodial sentences for dangerous offenders.

The result—a 27‑year custodial term with a five‑year extended licence—stands as a measured but robust response to the “prolific and chilling” criminality before the court, and provides clear guidance for future sentencing of complex, multi‑victim sexual offences in Northern Ireland.