R v WAG: Court of Appeal Clarifies the “Lead-Offence” Method and the Need for Discrete Sentences When Dealing with Multiple Sexual Offences

Introduction

In WAG, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 968) the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal considered the Solicitor-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The case concerned a 39-year-old offender convicted after trial of nine sexual offences (rape, attempted rape, assault by penetration, sexual activity/incitement within the family) perpetrated over 2½ years against his 13-year-old step-daughter.

The sentencing judge had imposed a single determinate sentence of 15 years on the count of rape (count 7) and ordered “no separate penalty” on the remaining eight counts, having elevated the rape into a higher guideline category to reflect totality. The Solicitor-General argued that (i) the overall sentence was unduly lenient and (ii) the judge erred in finding the offender not “dangerous” (thus declining to impose an extended sentence).

The Court of Appeal (Edis LJ, with whom the other Lords Justices agreed) increased the total custodial term to 18 years, quashed the “no separate penalty” orders and laid down important guidance on how the lead-offence approach should be applied in multi-count indictments involving sexual offending.

Summary of the Judgment

Leave granted & sentences reviewed. The Court treated the 15-year term as unduly lenient given the breadth and gravity of the offending.
Substantive re-sentencing. The Court imposed concurrent sentences on every count (ranging from 5 – 11 years), setting the rape count at 18 years, thereby reflecting totality properly while still keeping rape as the “lead” offence.
Dangerousness. The trial judge’s decision not to treat the offender as dangerous under the Sentencing Act 2020 was upheld; the Court found the judge’s reasons “appropriately reasoned and properly open to him.” Hence, no extended sentence was imposed.
Principled error identified. The Court criticised the practice of recording “no separate penalty” on every ancillary count, emphasising: (a) each proven serious offence should attract a sentence for symbolic and practical reasons; and (b) failing to do so creates problems if the lead conviction is later quashed.
Guideline utilisation. The Court reaffirmed that the correct way to reflect multiple offences is not to “artificially” jump a guideline category on the lead offence, but to calibrate concurrent sentences and decide the uplift transparently.

Analysis

Precedents & Authorities Considered

Statutory Framework
- Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.36 (Attorney-General / Solicitor-General references).
- Sentencing Act 2020, ss. 265–279 (dangerous offenders & extended sentences).
- Sexual Offences Act 2003, ss. 1,2,25,26.
- Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (victim anonymity).
- Contempt of Court Act 1981, s. 11 (anonymising offender to protect victim).
Sentencing Council Guidelines
- Rape Guideline (2014) – especially the note: “campaign of rape – 20 years and above”.
- Assault by Penetration Guideline.
- Sexual Activity with a Child Family Member Guideline.
- Inciting a Child Family Member to Engage in Sexual Activity Guideline.
- Overarching Guideline on Totality (2012).
Case Law (While no specific earlier cases were cited in the judgment, the Court’s reasoning draws on established appellate authority that: (i) totality must be “just and proportionate” (e.g. Attorney-General’s Reference No 60 of 2009), and (ii) a finding of dangerousness is a fact-sensitive evaluative exercise (R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864)).

Legal Reasoning

Edis LJ addressed two discrete questions: totality and dangerousness.

1. Totality & the Lead-Offence Approach

The Court accepted that using a “lead” offence is conventional but underscored that simply escalating that count to a higher guideline category is “flawed” where:

it disguises the true scale of wrongdoing,
fails to record sentences on other counts (symbolism & practicality), and
may unravel if the lead conviction is disturbed on appeal/re-trial.

Instead, the sentencing judge should:

Individually categorise each offence and pass a concurrent sentence that fits the guideline for that count.
Decide the appropriate global sentence – usually realised through the lead offence – by explicit, reasoned uplift after considering aggravation, mitigation, and the totality guideline.
Articulate how the uplift correlates to multiplicity, duration and gravity (here: 9 counts; 2½ years; abuse of trust; blackmail; ejaculation; lasting harm).

2. Dangerousness & Extended Sentences

The Court distinguished the totality error from the dangerousness determination. Although the pre-sentence report described the offender as posing a “high risk of serious harm”, the trial judge relied on several countervailing factors:

Two years on bail without interference with the victim.
Absence of a prior criminal record; no evidence of a broader predatory pattern.
The opportunities exploited (sole overnight carer during pandemic) were “unlikely to recur”.

Appellate intervention on dangerousness requires a clear error of principle; the judge’s articulated reasons were adequate, so the Court declined to disturb that finding.

Likely Impact of the Decision

Sentencing Practice. Crown Court judges now have explicit guidance that: (a) every serious count must attract its own sentence (even when concurrent), and (b) totality cannot be achieved simply by guideline “category inflation”.
Appeal Safety-Net. The judgment highlights technical pitfalls of “no separate penalty” orders; future judges may avoid appellate complications by passing discrete sentences.
Attorney-General References. The case illustrates the continued willingness of the Court of Appeal to intervene where totality is understated, even if the starting point on the lead offence falls within guideline range.
Dangerousness Analysis. While not setting a new benchmark, the decision reminds practitioners that dangerousness findings are fact-dependent; a gloomy probation assessment is not determinative.
Victim Protection & Anonymity. The Court reaffirmed the practice of anonymising an offender where necessary to maintain lifelong anonymity for the victim under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “No Separate Penalty”
A device where a court records a conviction but does not impose a sentence, usually because the punishment on another count already reflects the offending. The Court emphasised that in serious cases this should be used sparingly.

2. Totality Principle
Ensures the overall sentence for multiple offences is proportionate to the total wrong done, preventing both excessive and inadequate cumulative punishment.

3. “Dangerousness”
A statutory test (Sentencing Act 2020) asking whether the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to the public. If so, the court may impose an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) or a life sentence.

4. Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS)
Consists of a custodial “term” plus an “extension period” of licence supervision up to 8 years (or 10 for specified violent offences). Release is at two-thirds, with recall risk for the remainder.

5. Solicitor-General’s Reference (s.36 CJA 1988)
Enables the law officers to ask the Court of Appeal to review a Crown Court sentence they believe is “unduly lenient”. The defendant may not receive a harsher penalty than the Court of Appeal considers just.

Conclusion

R v WAG stands as a significant clarification of how English sentencing courts should approach indictments featuring numerous sexual offences against a single victim. The Court of Appeal held that:

Each serious count warrants its own sentence, even if concurrency and totality considerations ultimately mean the custodial exposure is driven by one lead count.
Inflating the guideline category on the lead offence is not an adequate substitute for transparent assessment of multiplicity and duration.
Findings of “dangerousness” remain discretionary; appellate courts will hesitate to interfere absent demonstrable error.

Practitioners should note that failure to follow this structure may invite references for undue leniency, while defendants and victims can gain greater confidence that each crime is individually acknowledged by the justice system. Ultimately, the decision reinforces proportionality, transparency, and victim protection as cornerstones of modern sentencing.