Levesconte, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, born on 7 May 1969, was convicted on 4 November 2022 in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Coupland and a jury of two counts of indecent assault, one count of attempted rape, and two counts of rape involving two complainants, C1 and C2. The offences occurred in the 1980s when the appellant was a teenager and the complainants were children aged between 10 and 13 years. The appellant was sentenced on 22 December 2022 to a total of 14 years' imprisonment, comprising concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various counts. The appellant appealed the sentence with leave granted by a single judge. The appeal concerns issues including the appropriateness of the lead offence chosen for sentencing, the correct categorisation of offences, the maximum sentences applicable at the time of offending, the appellant’s age at the time, the impact of delay, and totality of sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of eight years' imprisonment on count 5 (attempted rape) exceeded the statutory maximum applicable at the time of offending.
2. Whether count 7 (rape) should have been treated as the lead offence for sentencing purposes instead of count 5.
3. Whether the categorisation of count 7 under the sentencing guideline was correct.
4. Whether the reductions applied for the appellant’s age at the time of offending and other mitigating factors were adequate.
5. Whether the totality principle was properly applied in imposing consecutive sentences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence of eight years on count 5 was manifestly excessive as it did not reflect the fact that the offence was an attempt and possibly exceeded the statutory maximum at the time.
• The appellant was 15 to 16 years old at the time of count 5, limiting the maximum sentence to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution, making the imposed sentence disproportionate.
• Count 7 should have been the lead offence given it carried a higher maximum sentence and was not subject to youth sentencing limits.
• The reduction of one-third for age was insufficient, and further reductions should have been made to reflect the appellant's unstable upbringing and the long delay since offending.
• The imposition of consecutive sentences failed to properly consider the totality principle and was excessive.
• Count 7 should have been categorised as 3B under the sentencing guideline rather than 3A, affecting the starting point for sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s sentencing decisions were within the permissible range and the sentences imposed were appropriate.
• The reduction for age and totality principles were adequately considered.
• The original categorisation and lead offence selection were justified.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the statutory framework, including the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and relevant sentencing guidelines for sexual offences and young offenders. It noted the complexity due to the offences being historical and the appellant’s age at the time of offending versus sentencing. The court identified two key problems with the original sentence on count 5: no clear finding on the exact date of the offence affecting the statutory maximum sentence, and the maximum custodial sentence for a 16 or 17-year-old was limited to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution, making the eight-year sentence potentially unlawful.

The court agreed with the appellant that count 7 should have been the lead offence as it carried a higher maximum sentence without youth restrictions. It analysed the categorisation of count 7 under the sentencing guideline, concluding that it should be category 3B rather than 3A, as grooming was not a listed factor for category 3A. The court considered aggravating features and mitigation, arriving at a notional sentence of seven years, reduced to six for mitigation and totality, and further reduced by one-third for youth, resulting in four years' imprisonment.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of ten months on count 5, reflecting the attempt nature and youth sentencing limits, and upheld the sentences on counts 1 and 2. The court also upheld the consecutive six-year sentence on count 9, which reflected the rape of the second complainant and included a substantial discount for totality and youth.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL. It quashed the original eight-year sentence on count 5 and substituted a sentence of ten months' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the four-year sentence on count 7. The sentences of nine months on counts 1 and 2 remain concurrent and undisturbed. The six-year consecutive sentence on count 9 remains undisturbed. The aggregate sentence is reduced from 14 years to ten years' imprisonment.

The decision directly affects the appellant’s custodial term by reducing it and clarifies the application of sentencing principles for historical offences committed by young offenders, particularly regarding statutory maximums and appropriate lead offence selection. No new precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing guidelines and case law.