R v Bunce [2025] EWCA Crim 1157: Campaign‑of‑Abuse Sentencing—Elevation to Category 1 Harm and High Culpability, and Endorsement of a Single Global Sentence Under the Totality Guideline

Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Citation: [2025] EWCA Crim 1157

Judgment date: 23 July 2025

Judge giving the judgment: Mrs Justice Yip

Anonymity: The Court reiterates the mandatory reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. No information likely to identify the complainant may be published during her lifetime. This commentary respects that order.

Introduction

This appeal concerns the proper application of the Sentencing Council guidelines to multiple serious sexual offences arising from a sustained course of abuse against a highly vulnerable adult complainant. The appellant, a school caretaker, was sentenced at Bristol Crown Court to a total of 28 years’ imprisonment for two counts of rape (oral), 13 counts of assault by penetration, one count of sexual assault, and three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The offences involved persistent, daily penetrative assaults (both digital and with objects), repeated oral rapes, physical punishment, humiliation, and the taking of photographs—amounting, as the sentencing judge put it, to “some of the vilest abuse” encountered in a long career.

The case had an unusual and troubling background: the complainant—an adult with a history of selective mutism and social isolation—had earlier been groomed and abused over many years by a different school caretaker, Reading. The appellant initially positioned himself as a supporter and confidant after the disclosure of Reading’s abuse, before grooming the complainant and commencing his own campaign of offending.

On appeal (leave having been granted by the single judge), the appellant contended that the 28-year term was manifestly excessive. He argued that the sentencing judge misapplied the rape and assault-by-penetration guidelines by (i) elevating harm and culpability to the highest brackets based on the pattern of abuse, (ii) importing harm considerations into culpability, (iii) failing to disentangle harm attributable to the co-defendant’s earlier abuse, and (iv) insufficiently weighing mitigation, including the appellant’s supposed “support” of the complainant. He also challenged the judge’s global, “single total” approach to sentence computation.

Summary of the Judgment

Appeal dismissed: The Court of Appeal upheld the total sentence of 28 years as not manifestly excessive in light of the extreme nature of the offending.
Harm and culpability: It was legitimate to elevate both harm and culpability due to the sustained, planned campaign of abuse. Treating the pattern of offending as a whole did not involve impermissible double counting.
Planning, violence, and recording: There was ample evidence of significant planning, use of violence and humiliation, and recording/photography—factors that placed culpability at the higher bracket.
Attribution of harm: Although disentangling harm from prior abuse was difficult, the appellant’s own persistent and repeated abuse was a significant driver of category 1 harm.
Mitigation rejected: The appellant’s purported “support” of the complainant was, on the trial judge’s findings, a vehicle for grooming and a further aggravating feature, not mitigation. Good character carried very limited weight in the circumstances.
Totality and global sentence: The trial judge’s approach—identifying notional sentences for individual counts and then imposing a single overall (concurrent) sentence reflecting the totality—was a sensible and orthodox application of the Totality guideline.
Perverting the course of justice: Attempts to pressurise the complainant to retract were separately prosecuted and sentenced; the judge properly avoided double counting by not re‑aggravating the sexual offences on that basis.

Analysis

The legal framework applied

Sentencing Council guidelines:
- Rape (adult complainant) guideline.
- Assault by Penetration guideline.
- Sexual Assault guideline.
- Totality guideline.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Anonymity of the complainant is reiterated and rigorously observed.
General principles: Avoiding double counting, distinguishing harm and culpability, and stepping back to ensure the sentence is just and proportionate to the overall criminality.

Precedents cited

No specific case authorities are quoted in the judgment. The Court’s reasoning is grounded in the Sentencing Council guidelines and well-established sentencing principles—especially the Totality guideline and the structured assessment of harm and culpability in sexual offence cases. The judgment reaffirms, rather than reforms, those principles, but it does so in a way that provides practical clarity for “campaign of abuse” cases.

The court’s legal reasoning

1) Elevating harm and culpability in a “campaign of abuse”

The sentencing judge described the offending as a campaign: persistent, repeated, and escalating abuse over months, often daily, involving penetration by fingers and objects, repeated oral rapes, physical punishment with implements, and humiliating photography. The Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge’s conclusion that these facts justified:

Harm at the top category: The persistent and repeated nature of the abuse was a significant driver of extreme harm. While the complainant’s prior abuse by another man complicated attribution, the appellant’s own conduct materially and substantially contributed to serious, enduring harm. The Court expressly accepted that the “extreme nature of category 2 factors may elevate an offence into category 1.”
High culpability: Even if some individual counts, viewed in isolation, might appear to fall within culpability band B, the sustained pattern, planning, recording, use of implements and violence, targeting vulnerability, and degradation together properly placed the offending in the higher bracket. That is consistent with guideline factors such as significant planning, additional degradation/humiliation, targeting a vulnerable victim, repeated assaults, and recording the offending.

2) No impermissible double counting

The appellant argued that the judge improperly “imported” harm factors into the culpability assessment. The Court rejected that contention. The pattern of offending legitimately affects both harm and culpability, but does so in different ways:

For harm: persistence and repetition amplify the seriousness of the impact on the victim and push the case into category 1.
For culpability: the sustained course, forethought, and modalities of abuse (planning, use of implements, photographing, and violence) demonstrate greater blameworthiness.

Because those assessments engage different dimensions of seriousness, recognising the same factual matrix across harm and culpability does not amount to double counting.

3) Planning, recording, and violence as hallmarks of higher culpability

The Court identified clear evidential features supporting the higher bracket for culpability:

Planning: Repeated abuse at school and at the complainant’s home; use of implements; arranging locations (e.g., locking a boiler room); and an evident, longstanding sexual interest in corporal punishment.
Recording: Photographs, including images of injuries and captions reflecting humiliation and degradation.
Violence and coercion: Caning and physical control; the complainant’s attempts to resist were overcome by the appellant’s strength.
Targeting vulnerability / abuse of trust: The appellant exploited his apparent role as a supporter in the aftermath of the complainant’s earlier abuse to groom and harm her.

4) Attribution of harm in the context of prior abuse by another offender

Where multiple offenders, at different times, have harmed the same complainant, courts must avoid falsely attributing harm. Here, the Court accepted the trial judge’s careful approach: though disentanglement was difficult, the appellant’s own persistent offending was itself a significant driver of the victim’s extreme harm, justifying category 1 harm. This approach confirms that, in sequential abuse cases, an offender cannot deflect responsibility for serious harm merely because a complainant was previously victimised; the question is whether the offender’s own conduct materially contributes to the high level of harm.

5) Mitigation: “Support” as grooming, not credit

The appellant argued that his prior “support” for the complainant (e.g., attending appointments, assisting with housing) should mitigate sentence. The trial judge found as a fact—having heard the evidence—that this was part of grooming for sexual exploitation. The Court of Appeal declined to disturb that finding. On those facts, the supposed “support” aggravated rather than mitigated the offending, because it facilitated access, manipulation, and control.

6) Totality and the “single global sentence”

The trial judge produced a table of notional sentences for individual counts (for example, 10 years for a single count of oral rape; 13 years for multiple oral rapes; 10 years for multiple anal penetrations; 8 years for each of a number of assaults by penetration; and shorter terms for sexual assault and ABH). If simply added up, the notional sentences would have exceeded 170 years. Recognising the artificiality of aggregation, the judge stepped back and imposed a single global sentence of 28 years, made concurrent on the lead counts, with lesser sentences for the sexual assault and ABH also concurrent.

The Court endorsed this approach as a sensible application of the Totality guideline: where numerous counts arise from a sustained course of conduct against a single complainant, a global sentence that reflects the overall criminality without becoming disproportionate is appropriate. Importantly, the judge used notional sentence-setting to ensure each count was reflected, then calibrated the overall sentence to achieve proportionality and avoid double punishment.

7) Avoiding cross‑proceedings double counting

Digital evidence revealed attempts to persuade the complainant to retract, including manipulation and undermining of the police. However, the appellant was separately prosecuted and sentenced for perverting the course of justice. The sentencing judge therefore did not further aggravate the sexual offences on that basis—an approach the Court approved as consistent with the principle against double counting across different sentencing exercises.

How the guidelines were applied in practice

Harm assessment: The Court accepted the judge’s conclusion that the persistent and repeated nature of the offending placed harm at category 1 overall. The judgment also recognises that the “extreme nature of category 2 factors can elevate to category 1.”
Culpability assessment: Features such as significant planning, repeated assaults on the same victim, violence, humiliation/degradation, and recording placed culpability firmly in the higher bracket for the course of conduct, even though some individual counts might appear to be band B if isolated.
Course-of-conduct perspective: The Court approved looking beyond atomised counts to assess the reality of a campaign of abuse when classifying harm and culpability and when applying totality.
Concurrency and totality: The use of concurrent sentences with a single overall term to encapsulate the entire period of abuse was affirmed. This avoids the mechanical and misleading arithmetic of simply adding notional sentences.
Limited credit for prior good character: In the context of prolonged and grave sexual offending against a particularly vulnerable victim, lack of previous convictions carries modest weight.

Impact and significance

This decision provides practical clarification on several points that recur in serious sexual offence sentencing:

Campaign-of-abuse cases: Courts may properly treat sustained, patterned offending as warranting category 1 harm and high culpability—especially where planning, humiliation, violence, and recording are present—even if some individual counts might be lower when viewed in isolation.
Harm attribution in multi‑offender histories: A defendant cannot avoid category 1 harm merely because a complainant had been previously abused by another offender; the question is whether the defendant’s own conduct made a significant contribution to extreme harm.
Mitigation claims grounded in “support”: Where “support” functions as grooming or manipulation to facilitate abuse, it is aggravating, not mitigating.
Global sentencing under totality: The Court endorses the technique of identifying notional sentences to ensure each count is reflected, then stepping back to impose a single overall concurrent sentence that captures the totality without disproportion.
Double counting safeguards: Both within the harm/culpability analysis and across separate proceedings (e.g., perverting the course of justice), the judgment illustrates careful adherence to the prohibition on double counting.

Complex concepts simplified

Rape (SOA 2003): Penile penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent. In this case, the rape counts related to oral penetration by the penis.
Assault by penetration (SOA 2003): Non‑penile penetration (e.g., with fingers or objects) of the vagina or anus without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent.
Sexual assault (SOA 2003): Intentional sexual touching without consent and without a reasonable belief in consent.
ABH (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.47): Assault occasioning actual bodily harm—physical harm that is more than transient or trifling.
Culpability vs harm (Sentencing Council):
- Culpability looks at the offender’s blameworthiness (planning, targeting vulnerability, use of violence or implements, recording, repeated assaults).
- Harm looks at the impact and seriousness of the offence on the victim (physical/psychological injury, degradation, prolonged or repeated abuse).
Category 1 harm: The highest level of harm in the sexual offence guidelines; persistent and repeated abuse, additional degradation/humiliation, or other extreme features can place an offence here.
Double counting: Using the same fact to increase sentence more than once. It is impermissible; however, the same event may legitimately inform different dimensions (e.g., harm and culpability) where it speaks to distinct aspects of seriousness.
Totality: A principle ensuring that, when sentencing for multiple offences, the overall sentence is just and proportionate to the total criminality. Courts often use concurrent sentences and a single global term in course‑of‑conduct cases.
Campaign of abuse: A shorthand for sustained, repeated offending against the same victim. It typically justifies higher harm and culpability classifications.
Perverting the course of justice: Conduct that interferes with the administration of justice (e.g., pressuring a complainant to retract). Where separately prosecuted, it should not be treated again as an aggravating factor for the underlying offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Provides lifelong anonymity to complainants in sexual cases; courts and publications must avoid identification.

Conclusion

R v Bunce is an important reaffirmation of principled sentencing in multi‑count sexual offence cases involving a sustained pattern of abuse. The Court of Appeal confirms that:

A persistent campaign of sexual abuse may properly be treated as category 1 harm and high culpability, even if individual incidents could be placed lower in isolation.
Recognising the pattern across both harm and culpability does not entail double counting, because it legitimately informs distinct facets of seriousness.
Evidence of planning, recording, use of violence and implements, and humiliation will typically anchor the highest culpability bracket.
Where the complainant has a history of prior abuse, courts may still attribute category 1 harm to a later offender if the later offending materially contributes to extreme harm.
Purported “support” that facilitates grooming is an aggravating feature, not mitigation; prior good character carries little weight in such grave, sustained offending.
The “single global sentence” approach, grounded in the Totality guideline and supported by notional sentence-setting for transparency, is a sound method to achieve proportionate sentencing in complex, multi‑count sexual cases.

In short, the Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores both the gravity with which the criminal justice system treats sustained sexual exploitation of vulnerable adults and the careful, structured methodology that sentencing judges are expected to apply. The decision will guide future cases where a course of conduct, rather than isolated incidents, defines the criminality, and it provides clear markers for avoiding double counting while still reflecting the full extent of harm and culpability.