Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff, then aged 16, was convicted on 1 November 2023 at the Crown Court at Woolwich before Mr Recorder Kovats KC and a jury, of one count of rape and one count of theft. His co-defendant was convicted of one count of rape. The Plaintiff was sentenced on 9 February 2024 to a two-year detention and training order (DTO) for the rape, with no separate penalty for the theft, and a previously imposed youth rehabilitation order (YRO) was revoked. The co-defendant received a two-year YRO with intensive supervision for his offence. The prosecution’s application for sexual harm prevention orders against both defendants was refused.
The Plaintiff had been remanded in custody for eight days and then placed in local authority accommodation under an electronically monitored curfew for 203 days prior to trial. The Plaintiff now applies for leave to appeal his sentence, the application having been referred to the full court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals. Representation at the appeal hearing was by Attorney Morgan for the Plaintiff and Attorney Riley for the prosecution.
On 3 May 2023, the victim, referred to as MM, then aged 14, encountered the Plaintiff and his co-defendant in a park in London. The defendants engaged MM in conversation and led her to a secluded area where each raped her by oral penetration. MM’s AirPods were stolen by the Plaintiff and later recovered. MM reported the offences the following day. The Plaintiff was arrested on 9 May 2023 and interviewed without substantive answers. Prior to these offences, the Plaintiff had been sentenced for multiple offences including robbery, drug possession, and criminal damage, with a referral order imposed the day before the offences against MM occurred. Subsequent breaches led to a 12-month YRO with additional requirements.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s sentence was manifestly excessive.
- Whether there was a wrongful disparity in sentencing between the Plaintiff and his co-defendant.
- Whether the Plaintiff should receive credit for 102 days spent in local authority accommodation under electronically monitored curfew when calculating the sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence was manifestly excessive due to overemphasis on the Plaintiff’s previous convictions and insufficient weight to personal mitigation, including his difficult childhood and limited opportunity to respond to prior sentences.
- The judge failed to apply the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People in an individualised manner, particularly neglecting rehabilitation considerations.
- The Plaintiff should have been credited with 102 days spent under electronically monitored curfew in local authority accommodation.
- The sentence was wrong in principle due to a significant disparity compared to the co-defendant’s sentence, despite equal culpability.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution’s legal arguments beyond their representation at the hearing.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the sentencing judge’s application of the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Sentencing Children and Young People, particularly for sexual offences. The judge’s finding that the offence fell within Category 2A of the adult guideline was supported by the severe psychological harm to the victim and the presence of implied threat and pressure by the combined offenders acting in tandem. The judge’s consideration of the Plaintiff’s significant prior offending history and poor response to previous sentences was upheld as a valid aggravating factor justifying immediate custody.
The court noted that although the Plaintiff had only recently been sentenced before committing these offences, his continued offending supported the judge’s conclusion regarding his poor response to sentences. The court found that the sentence imposed was well below the adult guideline range when adjusted for the Plaintiff’s age, and thus was not manifestly excessive.
Regarding disparity, the court found no merit in the argument given the differing offending histories of the Plaintiff and co-defendant, despite equal culpability for the offence.
On the issue of credit for the 102 days spent in local authority accommodation subject to electronically monitored curfew, the court found ambiguity in the judge’s post-sentence remarks but concluded the judge must have taken this period into account in determining the length of the DTO. However, the failure to explicitly deduct these days from the sentence term was a potentially arguable ground for appeal.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to appeal solely on the ground of the failure to explicitly deduct 102 days spent in local authority accommodation under electronically monitored curfew from the sentence. However, the appeal was ultimately DISMISSED.
The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s sentence remains as imposed, with no reduction for the 102 days explicitly recorded, but no new legal precedent was established by this decision.