R v WCU [2025] EWCA Crim 1414: Reaffirming the “exceptional” threshold for 30+ year sentences, tightening late guilty plea credit, and correcting the use of Special Custodial Sentences alongside Extended Sentences

---

Introduction

This appeal concerns sentencing for prolific and protracted intra-familial sexual abuse of three child victims by their step-father. The appellant pleaded guilty on the first day of his trial to 22 offences, including dozens of rapes and assaults by penetration committed over many years, and while on police bail in respect of one victim. The Crown Court imposed three concurrent extended sentences of 33 years (comprising a 30-year custodial term plus a three-year extended licence) and also imposed a series of “special custodial sentences” on other counts.

The appeal raised three principal questions:

• When, and on what basis, may a sentencing court exceed 30 years for non-life determinate sentences in rape cases, following R v AYO?
• What is the proper credit for guilty pleas entered at, or just before, the start of trial?
• Can a court impose “special custodial sentences” under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in the same case where extended sentences are imposed?

The appellant did not challenge the finding of “dangerousness,” the decision to impose extended sentences, or the length of the extended licence periods. He contended that the sentencing judge wrongly treated the case as justifying more than 30 years after trial, and that the approach to plea credit and to certain individual sentences was flawed.

Summary of the Judgment

• Exceptional seriousness and the 30-year threshold: Applying R v AYO, the Court of Appeal agreed that this was an exceptional case meriting a post‑trial custodial term exceeding 30 years, given the scale and gravity of the offending and the controlling, manipulative, and cruel family context. However, the court held that a notional after-trial term of 33 years, not 37.5 years, was appropriate.
• Guilty plea credit recalibrated: The trial judge’s 20% credit for pleas entered at the start of trial was too generous. While some flexibility above the usual 10% can be justified where there is short‑notice indication before the trial, 20% was not warranted on the facts. The Court of Appeal effectively applied about 15% credit to the 33‑year notional term, producing a custodial term of 28 years.
• Extended sentence maintained but reduced in length: The court quashed the 30‑year custodial terms on the lead counts and substituted 28‑year custodial terms, with the three‑year extended licence retained. The overall sentence is therefore an extended sentence of 31 years (28 years’ custody + three years’ extended licence).
• Special Custodial Sentences quashed: The “special custodial sentences” imposed under section 278 Sentencing Act 2020 on certain counts were unlawful where extended sentences were being imposed in the same case. Those sentences were quashed and replaced with determinate terms.
• Victim surcharge corrected: The surcharge was not applicable given the dates of some of the offending, and the Court of Appeal confirmed there should be no victim surcharge.
• Outcome: Appeal allowed to this limited extent only. The final position: an extended sentence of 31 years (28 years’ custody + three years’ extended licence), with all other concurrent terms running alongside and the unlawful special custodial sentences replaced by determinate terms.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Instruments Cited

R v AYO [2022] EWCA Crim 127; [2024] WLR 95

AYO is the modern anchor for very high determinate sentences in serious sexual offending. The Court restated key principles from AYO (especially at paras 23, 24, 53 and 75):

• Sentences in excess of 30 years after trial are exceptional and must be carefully justified.
• Where the features of the case are extreme—number of rapes, prolonged duration, multiple victims, familial breach of trust, coercion/control—the court may exceed the 30-year “ceiling” for non-life determinate terms.

In WCU the Court of Appeal applied AYO to conclude that, although the facts were extreme and exceptional enough to justify exceeding 30 years, the appropriate after-trial term was 33 years, not 37.5 years.

R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568; [2021] 4 WLR 82

Plaku confirms how the Sentencing Council’s “Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea” guideline operates:

• One-third credit is reserved for a plea at the “first stage of the proceedings” (typically the first hearing where a plea or indication is sought, often the Magistrates’ Court for indictable-only offences).
• After that stage, the maximum is 25%.
• Pleas on the first day of trial generally attract around 10% credit, with possible modest flexibility depending on timing and the effect on victims and witnesses.

In WCU, the appellant’s “door of court” pleas, despite a short period of advance indication, did not justify the 20% reduction allowed below. The Court of Appeal effectively applied about 15% (reducing 33 years to 28).

R v Powell [2018] EWCA Crim 1074; [2018] 2 Cr App R (S) 34

Powell establishes that a Special Custodial Sentence for certain offenders of particular concern (now section 278 Sentencing Act 2020; formerly section 236A Criminal Justice Act 2003) cannot be imposed where an extended sentence is imposed. The two structures are mutually exclusive. WCU adheres to this rule, quashing the unlawful special custodial sentences and substituting determinate terms.

Statutory and Guideline Framework

• Sentencing Act 2020, Part 4: Governs extended sentences (s 279) and special custodial sentences for offenders of particular concern (s 278), among other matters. The totality principle and structured approach to multiple counts inform the overall sentence.
• Sentencing Council Guideline: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: Applied to calibrate the credit for the appellant’s late pleas.
• Sexual Offences Act 2003: Offences included rape and assault of a child under 13 by penetration (s 6), and sexual activity with a child family member (s 2).
• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Automatic lifetime anonymity for victims of sexual offending—reiterated at the outset of the judgment.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1) Exceptional seriousness and the notional post‑trial sentence

The Court endorsed the sentencing judge’s characterisation of the case as exceptional under AYO: three intra‑familial child victims; at least 53 rapes and at least 28 assaults by penetration; prolonged offending across years; and a household defined by the appellant’s “control, manipulation and cruelty.” The appellant continued to offend on bail and admitted he would have continued but for arrest. These features readily crossed the “exceptional” threshold for a determinate term exceeding 30 years after trial.

Nonetheless, the Court found the judge’s implied post‑trial figure of 37.5 years too high. Having regard to Part 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the relevant Definitive Guidelines, the Court fixed the correct after-trial custodial term at 33 years. This re‑affirms AYO’s caution against normalising terms far beyond 30 years and emphasises careful calibration at the very top of the scale.

2) Credit for guilty pleas at the door of the court

The judge below allowed 20% credit for pleas entered on the first day of trial, attributing some weight to the short-notice indication in the days immediately before trial. The Court of Appeal held that:

• There was no proper basis to enhance credit for “remorse.” The pre-sentence report found no real remorse and the judge did not purport to allow any.
• Under the guideline and Plaku, a first‑day-of-trial plea typically attracts around 10% credit. Some flexibility above that level may be justified in particular circumstances, for example where advance notification avoids witness attendance and further harm—but not to the extent of 20% on these facts.
• Applying this approach, the Court effectively allowed about 15% credit, reducing the notional after‑trial term of 33 years to a custodial term of 28 years.

3) Dangerousness and the architecture of the extended sentence

The appellant did not challenge the finding of dangerousness or the fitness of the extended sentence structure. On the material before it—prolonged multi‑victim offending, offending on bail, minimisation, lack of remorse, and the probation assessment that the appellant would have continued—the Court held the extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was plainly justified. The three‑year extended licence was maintained (well below the statutory maximum for sexual offences).

4) The illegality of Special Custodial Sentences alongside Extended Sentences

The Crown Court had imposed “special custodial sentences” under section 278 of the 2020 Act on certain counts (with one‑year licence extensions) in a case where extended sentences were also imposed. This was wrong in law. Echoing Powell, the Court of Appeal quashed those sentences and substituted determinate terms (8 or 10 years, concurrent).

5) Holistic review: Is the overall sentence manifestly excessive?

The Court emphasised that the appellate question is whether the end result is manifestly excessive; parts of the judge’s reasoning should not be compartmentalised. This holistic approach led to:

• A lower notional after‑trial custodial term (33 not 37.5 years),
• A stricter view on late plea credit (approximately 15%, not 20%),
• And thus a substituted custodial term of 28 years on the lead counts, coupled with a three‑year extended licence.

6) Victim surcharge

Because some of the offending pre‑dated the commencement of the relevant surcharge provisions, the victim surcharge did not apply. The Court confirmed explicitly that no surcharge is payable.

Impact and Significance

• Top‑end calibration after AYO: WCU reinforces that very high determinate terms above 30 years remain exceptional. Even in a case of extreme multi‑victim familial rape with sustained coercive control, the Court set the proper after‑trial term at 33 years. Sentencers should be slow to drift towards 35–40 year figures as a matter of course.
• Late plea credit tightened: The decision sends a clear signal that 20% credit for first‑day pleas will rarely be justified. Modest flexibility above 10% may be appropriate where victims are spared attendance and the timing materially reduces harm, but the norm remains close to 10%.
• Structural purity in sentence types: WCU underscores the incompatibility of Special Custodial Sentences (s 278) with Extended Sentences (s 279). If an extended sentence is imposed in the case, SOPC should not be used on other counts. The correct alternative is a determinate term.
• Holistic appellate scrutiny: The Court’s insistence on evaluating the “end result” rather than atomised decisions is a useful reminder for appeal strategy and for sentencers recording reasons that align the notional after‑trial term, plea credit, totality, and dangerousness.
• Administrative accuracy—victim surcharge: For historic offending spanning legislative change, courts must check surcharge applicability carefully.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Extended sentence (s 279 Sentencing Act 2020): A two‑part sentence used where the offender is dangerous (poses a significant risk of serious harm by committing further specified offences):
  • Custodial term (the prison part), and
  • Extended licence (additional period of supervision after release, up to statutory maxima—typically up to eight years for sexual offences).
  The total “extended sentence” figure includes both parts, but only the custodial term is served in prison.
• Special Custodial Sentence (s 278 SA 2020): Sometimes called SOPC. A special sentence for certain offenders of particular concern, comprising a custodial term followed by a mandatory licence extension. It is not compatible with imposing an extended sentence in the same case.
• Credit for guilty plea: A percentage reduction to reflect benefits of an early plea (acceptance of responsibility, sparing victims, and saving court time). One‑third if entered at the first stage; up to 25% thereafter; typically around 10% if on the first day of trial, with limited flexibility.
• “Exceptional” determinate sentences above 30 years: AYO confirms that exceeding 30 years after trial is a rarity, reserved for the most extreme combinations of aggravating features (multiple victims, prolonged offending, severe coercion/control, breach of familial trust, and multiplicity of rapes).
• Concurrent sentences: Running at the same time. In multi‑count cases, courts ensure the overall sentence reflects the total criminality (totality principle); overlapping sentences often run concurrently to avoid double‑counting.
• Manifestly excessive (appeal test): The Court of Appeal asks whether the sentence as a whole falls outside the permissible range. It will correct legal errors and re‑calibrate where needed, but respects the discretion of the sentencing judge within a proper range.

Practical Guidance for Sentencers and Practitioners

• Structure the top‑end analysis: Identify the notional after‑trial term first. If exceeding 30 years, record the “exceptional” features clearly, aligning with AYO.
• Apply plea credit rigorously: Anchor to the guideline and Plaku. First‑day pleas ordinarily attract around 10% credit. If allowing more, explain precisely why the circumstances (e.g., short‑notice indication materially sparing witnesses) justify a modest uplift.
• Avoid mixing sentence types: Do not impose SOPC (s 278) where extended sentences (s 279) are imposed in the same case. Use determinate terms for other counts.
• Record totality and dangerousness findings: Explain why an extended sentence is necessary and proportionate, referencing the risk evidence (e.g., offending on bail, lack of remorse, minimisation).
• Check surcharge applicability for historic offending: Verify commencement dates to avoid unlawful imposition.

Conclusion

R v WCU delivers three important refinements at the apex of sentencing for sexual offending:

1. AYO’s “exceptional” threshold for 30+ years is reaffirmed and tightly policed. Even in a profoundly aggravated, multi‑victim familial rape case, the proper notional after‑trial term was fixed at 33 years, not 37.5.
2. Late plea credit is to be kept within orthodox bounds. First‑day pleas generally mean around 10%—with only modest flexibility for pre‑trial indications that genuinely mitigate victim impact—and no additional allowance for “remorse” absent solid evidence.
3. Extended sentences and SOPC cannot coexist in the same case. Where extended sentences are imposed, other counts should attract determinate terms, not SOPC.

The result is a carefully calibrated extended sentence of 31 years (28 years’ custody plus a three‑year extended licence), with unlawful special custodial sentences replaced, and the victim surcharge correctly disapplied for historic offending. WCU will serve as a practical template for sentencing judges grappling with extreme sexual offending: start with AYO’s ceiling, justify any exceptional step beyond 30 years, apply plea credit strictly by the guideline, and maintain structural purity in the sentence types used.