R v ICG [2025] EWCA Crim 1196: Limited Discount for Attempted Rape Where Completion Was Thwarted by Interruption, With Lead-Count Uplift to Reflect Concurrent Penetrative Offences; Consecutive Sentences for Distinct Episodes Reaffirmed

Introduction

This Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision, delivered by Freedman J on 29 August 2025, concerns an appeal against a 16-year custodial sentence imposed for a series of sexual offences perpetrated by a step‑parent against a child over a three-year period. The judgment addresses three core sentencing issues: (1) whether a nine-year sentence for attempted rape was manifestly excessive where the rape did not reach completion; (2) whether a six-year sentence for sexual activity with a child (digital penetration) was too high given the absence of overt violence; and (3) whether the totality principle was properly applied to arrive at an overall 16-year term.

The Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying two important sentencing points:

Where a rape is thwarted by a fortuitous interruption (rather than voluntary desistance), and where concurrent penetrative offences occur in the same episode, the sentence for attempted rape may properly be anchored to the rape guideline with only a limited reduction for attempt, and with an uplift on the lead count to reflect concurrent offending.
Consecutive sentences for distinct episodes (even against the same complainant) are appropriate to reflect the overall criminality; totality can then be achieved by moderating sentences on less serious counts.

Reporting restrictions apply under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The complainant must not be identified. This commentary uses the anonymised terms employed by the Court.

Case Overview and Procedural Background

The appellant, a step‑parent referred to as ICG, was convicted across two trials. At the first trial (September 2023) he was convicted of sexual assault (count 9) and possession of indecent photographs (count 12) but acquitted on more serious counts. Following a retrial in November 2024, he was convicted of five counts of sexual activity with a child (counts 2–6) and one count of attempted rape (count 7). He was sentenced to a total of 16 years’ imprisonment.

The offending involved repeated sexual abuse between 2016 and 2019 when the complainant was aged 13 to 16. It included digital penetration, oral penetration, use of a vibrator, an attempted rape aborted only due to the risk of detection, sexual assault while she slept, and covert filming of the complainant undressing. There was evidence of grooming (including sexualised text messages) and exploitation of a parental role and the complainant’s vulnerabilities.

Grounds of appeal asserted that: (1) nine years for attempted rape was manifestly excessive; (2) six years for digital penetration (count 2) was too high; and (3) the overall sentence breached the totality principle. Leave was granted by the single judge; the full court dismissed the appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court upheld each impugned sentence and the totality of 16 years, concluding:

Attempted rape (count 7): Although attempts often attract some reduction from the completed offence, any reduction here was limited because:
- the attempt failed only due to an external interruption (the complainant’s brother nearby), not voluntary desistance or remorse;
- multiple penetrative acts occurred during the same episode (counts 4–6) to which concurrent terms were attached; it was proper to reflect their seriousness within an uplift on the lead count;
- the correct anchor was the rape guideline (category 2 harm, culpability A), with a range of 9–13 years; nine years was at the bottom of that range and not manifestly excessive.
Count 2 (digital penetration of a 13-year-old while ill): The six-year sentence was not manifestly excessive. The starting point was five years (category 1 harm, culpability A). Aggravating features—particularly the complainant’s very young age and acute vulnerability (ill, passing out after a bath)—justified going above the starting point.
Totality: Consecutive sentences were justified for separate episodes over a two‑year span. Totality was reflected in the judge’s moderation of other sentences (notably counts 3 and 9) and concurrency for counts 4–6 and 12 with count 7. The global sentence was proportionate to the overall criminality and consequences.

Analysis

Applicable Authorities and Precedents

The judgment does not cite case law authorities by name. It proceeds from and applies the Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines, together with well-established appellate principles:

Sentencing Council: Rape (adult offender) guideline: Used as the anchor for the attempted rape analysis (category 2 harm; culpability A; starting point 10 years; range 9–13 years). The Court confirms that even for attempts, the rape guideline can be the starting point where the facts are proximate to completion and the failure to complete is due to interruption rather than desistance.
Sentencing Council: Sexual offences guideline (sexual activity with a child): Count 2 was located at harm category 1 and culpability A, with a five-year starting point, range 4–10 years; upward movement was justified by aggravation including extreme youth and vulnerability.
Sentencing Council: Totality guideline: Consecutive sentences are appropriate for separate incidents or different victims; totality is then addressed by ensuring the aggregate is just and proportionate. The judge applied totality by:
- making counts 4–6 and 12 concurrent with count 7 to avoid artificial inflation from the same episode; and
- tempering the sentences on counts 3 and 9 due to overall proportionality, even though they could have been higher on a stand-alone basis.
Appellate standard (no named case cited): The Court will interfere only if the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It also underlines that absence of a guilty plea is not to be punished, but lack of remorse removes mitigation.

In effect, the Court restates and clarifies (rather than departs from) the established principles governing attempts, aggravated child sexual offences, and totality.

Legal Reasoning and Pathway

1) Attempted rape: anchoring to the rape guideline with limited discount

The Court accepted the orthodox premise that attempts usually attract a discount from the completed offence. However, it emphasised that the size of that discount depends on the facts. Here:

Proximity and context: The attempt occurred amidst a series of penetrative acts during a single episode (vibrator, digital and oral penetration), all of which were serious and aggravating. These counts (4–6) were concurrent, legitimising an uplift on the lead count to capture the full criminality of the episode.
Reason for non-completion: The appellant stopped not from remorse or self-control, but because he was concerned about detection when the complainant’s brother was nearby. Where non-completion is due to external interruption, the gap between the attempt and the completed offence narrows substantially for sentencing purposes.
Guideline categorisation: Harm category 2 (severe psychological harm) and culpability A (abuse of trust) were accepted. The guideline range of 9–13 years for rape provided a sound reference point; nine years (the bottom of the range) for the attempt—adjusted upward for concurrency effects and downward for the absence of completion—was within reasonable bounds.

This reasoning clarifies that a court may legitimately:

start from the completed offence guideline for rape;
apply only a modest reduction for an attempt when the offence was on the cusp of completion and ceased due to interruption; and
apply an uplift on the lead count to reflect simultaneous concurrent penetrative offences, avoiding under‑punishment when concurrency is used to manage overlap.

2) Digital penetration of a 13-year-old while acutely vulnerable (count 2)

The Court endorsed categorisation at harm category 1 and culpability A, with a five-year starting point and a range of 4–10 years. The appellant’s argument—that the absence of threats or violence should depress the sentence—was rejected:

Significant aggravation: The complainant was only 13; she fell ill, passed out after a bath, and the appellant exploited that helplessness. This was an extreme form of vulnerability, compounded by the familial trust dynamic and age disparity. Those features justify moving above the starting point to six years without double-counting.
Abuse of trust: The appellant’s “step‑parent” role magnified culpability. Abuse of trust is a recognised element of culpability A; the judge did not count it twice but properly relied on other aggravating factors to justify uplift.

3) Totality and the structure of concurrent and consecutive sentences

The sentencing judge ran:

counts 4–6 and 12 concurrent with count 7 (same episode); and
counts 2, 3, and 9 consecutive (distinct episodes separated by time).

The Court of Appeal endorsed this approach, stressing that:

Distinct episodes justify consecutive terms: It would unduly flatten overall criminality to make all counts concurrent simply because there is a single complainant. Here, the serious episodes were separated by about two years and involved different circumstances.
Totality “in action”: The judge tempered lesser counts (3 and 9), explicitly invoking totality. Those counts could have attracted significantly higher terms on a stand-alone basis (e.g., count 9 had a starting point of two years with a range of 1–4 years), but were moderated to ensure the overall term was just and proportionate.

The resulting 16-year aggregate was therefore not manifestly excessive; rather, it accurately reflected the seriousness, persistence, and life-long impact of the offending, while giving real effect to concurrency where appropriate.

Impact and Practical Significance

This decision offers clear guidance for sentencing in multi‑count sexual abuse cases with an attempted rape component:

Attempts near completion: When completion is forestalled by interruption, a sentence for attempted rape may properly be very close to (and even within) the completed rape guideline range after factoring the full context, especially where multiple penetrative acts occur in the same episode.
Lead-count uplift for concurrency: Where multiple serious offences occur together and are made concurrent, courts may increase the lead-count sentence to reflect the totality of the episode and avoid under-sentencing.
Consecutive terms for temporally distinct episodes: Even with a single victim, separate abusive incidents across different dates may and often should attract consecutive sentences, with totality achieved by moderating individual terms where necessary.
Aggravation through vulnerability: Exploiting a child’s acute vulnerability (illness, unconsciousness) and a familial position of trust powerfully aggravates and can justify moving above the starting point even without overt physical violence.
Remorse and mitigation: Absence of a guilty plea cannot be punished, but lack of remorse removes mitigation. Age and health (e.g., mild cognitive impairment) may be considered but will rarely weigh heavily against grave, persistent harm.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Attempt vs completed offence: An attempt is when a defendant takes steps beyond mere preparation toward committing a crime but does not complete it. In sentencing, attempts often attract a reduction; however, where the attempt nearly succeeded and stopped only due to outside interruption, the discount may be small.
Lead offence and concurrency: In multi-count cases arising from the same incident, courts often impose concurrent sentences for overlapping conduct and select a “lead” count to carry the principal punishment. The lead count can be uplifted to reflect the total criminality of the episode.
Consecutive sentences: Sentences for different incidents are usually consecutive so the total reflects all wrongdoing. They are then assessed for overall proportionality under totality.
Totality principle: The rule that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total offending. Courts can achieve totality by running some sentences concurrently and/or moderating individual terms.
Sentencing guidelines—starting point and range: The starting point is the benchmark for a typical case within a given category; the range allows movement up or down based on aggravating and mitigating factors.
Culpability A / Harm category 1: In sexual offences guidelines, culpability A denotes the highest culpability (e.g., abuse of trust, targeting a particularly vulnerable child). Harm category 1 denotes the most serious harm (including severe psychological harm), calling for higher sentences.
Double counting: Using the same factor to increase sentence twice is impermissible. Here, while abuse of trust placed the offence in high culpability, the judge relied on distinct additional aggravators (age, acute vulnerability) to justify moving above the starting point.
Manifestly excessive: The appellate test is not whether the Court of Appeal would have passed the same sentence, but whether the sentence is wrong in principle or outside the reasonable range—i.e., manifestly excessive.

Concluding Remarks

R v ICG provides clear, practical guidance on calibrating sentences for attempted rape embedded within a broader episode of penetrative sexual offending against a child. The Court confirms that:

Where the attempt is foiled by interruption and sits alongside other serious, contemporaneous sexual acts, anchoring to the rape guideline with a limited discount is legitimate.
Lead-count uplift can properly account for concurrent penetrative offences to avoid under-penalising a single, highly aggravated episode.
Consecutive sentences are apt for separate episodes, with totality delivered by judicious moderation of individual counts.

The decision strengthens existing sentencing practice in familial abuse cases, underscores the weight of vulnerability and abuse of trust, and reiterates that totality is a real arithmetic and principled exercise—not a formulaic incantation. Practitioners should expect robust sentences where grooming, exploitation of parental roles, and severe psychological harm are present, even in the absence of overt violence or threats.

Key Takeaways

Attempted rape can attract a sentence within the completed rape guideline range where non-completion is due to interruption and the episode includes other penetrative acts.
Exploitation of acute vulnerability (e.g., illness/unconsciousness) and abuse of trust justify upward movement within guideline ranges.
Consecutive sentences for distinct episodes against the same complainant are appropriate; totality can and should be reflected through concurrency where incidents overlap and by moderating lesser counts.
Lack of remorse removes mitigation; age and health are considered but may carry limited weight against grave, sustained abuse.
Totality requires a coherent structure (lead-count selection, concurrency for overlap, and justified consecutive terms) resulting in a proportionate overall sentence.

Citation: R v ICG [2025] EWCA Crim 1196, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 29 August 2025 (Freedman J). Reporting restrictions apply under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992; the complainant must not be identified.