Woods, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, now aged 42, was convicted of three counts of rape committed between August 2000 and December 2001 when he was 18 years old. The victim, his partner at the time aged 16 or 17, was vulnerable due to personal circumstances including the recent death of her mother and unstable home life. The applicant raped the victim on three separate occasions, involving acts of vaginal and anal rape, some occurring in the presence of others, and causing significant humiliation and harm. The applicant had a history of sexual offences and breaches of notification requirements, including convictions in 2004, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2021, and 2022 for various sexual offences and related breaches.

Following the 2000-2001 offences, the applicant was sentenced to extended custodial terms of 21 years plus five years extended licence for each rape count, concurrently serving eight months for failing to comply with notification requirements. Leave to appeal against the extended sentence was initially refused by a single judge, prompting a renewed application for leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the extended sentence was justified given the risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences.
2. Whether the length of the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly considering the offences were committed over 20 years ago when the applicant was 18 years old.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The extended sentence should not have been imposed due to lack of sound basis for concluding a significant risk of serious harm to the public.
• The custodial sentence length was excessive, failing to adequately account for the applicant's youth and immaturity at the time of offending.
• Reliance on R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 to argue that sentencing should reflect what would have been imposed shortly after the offences, emphasizing the applicant’s age at the time.

Appellee's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was well placed to assess the offending and harm, having heard victim evidence and reviewed reports.
• The extended sentence was appropriate given the applicant’s persistent refusal to comply with court orders and the ongoing risk he posed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the seriousness of the offences, highlighting the additional elements of humiliation, degradation, coercion, and control, and the profound lifelong harm caused to the victim. The judge’s description of the applicant as a sexually aggressive and predatory individual was accepted, as was the assessment of continuing risk based on the applicant’s history of non-compliance and further sexual offences.

In relation to sentencing principles, the court engaged with the appellant’s submissions relying on R v Ahmed but clarified that because the applicant was 18 at the time of offending, the sentencing regime applicable at the date of sentencing applies, consistent with R v H(J) and R v Forbes. The court acknowledged the applicant’s youth and immaturity at the time but found no evidence he was less mature than his peers, though recognizing he had not attained full adult maturity.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that the original extended sentence of 26 years was manifestly excessive. It substituted a reduced extended sentence of 23 years, comprising an 18-year custodial term and a five-year extended licence period, reflecting a measured approach to the guidelines and the applicant’s circumstances.

The court also clarified that the victim surcharge did not apply, as the offences predated the relevant provisions.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, quashing the original extended sentences of 26 years and substituting concurrent extended sentences of 23 years each, consisting of 18 years’ custody and five years’ extended licence.

This decision directly affects the applicant by reducing the length of the custodial sentence while maintaining the extended licence period, reflecting a balanced approach to sentencing an adult offender for offences committed at the borderline of adulthood. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles.