Factual and Procedural Background
On 31 July 2024, two Respondents were sentenced following convictions after trials before His Honour Judge Phillips KC and a jury in the Crown Court at Leeds. The first Respondent was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment for trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation contrary to section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The second Respondent was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for rape contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; he was tried in absentia after absconding before the trial.
The victim, a vulnerable girl referred to as LD, was groomed and sexually exploited by older men during two distinct periods: from ages 13 to 14 and later between ages 18 and 20. LD experienced severe abuse, including being taken to locations where she was subjected to alcohol, drugs, and penetrative sexual activity. She was found to have multiple sexually transmitted diseases by age 14 and was subsequently placed in secure accommodation where the exploitation ceased temporarily. After moving to foster care and then to her own flat at age 18, LD resumed contact with some abusers, leading to further sexual abuse including rape by the second Respondent.
LD first reported the abuse in 2015, leading to investigations and arrests of at least 30 men connected to offences involving LD and other vulnerable young women. Both Respondents denied or minimized their involvement during police interviews. The offenders were tried in multiple trials from 2023 to 2024, with convictions secured after retrials.
At sentencing, the first Respondent was noted to have no previous convictions and positive character references, while the second Respondent had absconded and had no relevant prior sexual offence convictions. LD provided a victim personal statement describing severe psychological harm resulting from the abuse.
The Solicitor General applied to refer both sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines in relation to the first Respondent’s offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation, considering the repeal of section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
- Whether the sentences imposed on the first and second Respondents were unduly lenient, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors and the appropriate application of sentencing guidelines.
- Whether the principle of parity among defendants in related proceedings justified the sentence imposed on the second Respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The judge applied an incorrect sentencing guideline to the first Respondent by using the now-repealed section 58 Sexual Offences Act 2003 guideline instead of the current Modern Slavery Act 2015 guideline effective from 1 October 2021.
- The first Respondent’s offence fell into Category 2B under the Modern Slavery Act guideline, with a starting point of 8 years and a range of 6 to 10 years, warranting a higher sentence due to aggravating factors such as the victim’s age and vulnerability.
- The sentence for the second Respondent failed to reflect the multiplicity of harm factors and aggravating circumstances, meriting a sentence significantly greater than 10 years.
First Respondent's Arguments
- The judge correctly applied the guideline related to section 58 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was the relevant law at the time of the offence.
- The Modern Slavery Act guideline does not explicitly reference repealed Sexual Offences Act provisions and thus was irrelevant to sentencing in this case.
- The judge, having presided over the trial, was best placed to assess culpability and appropriately balance aggravating and mitigating factors.
Second Respondent's Arguments
- Similar to the first Respondent, the judge was in the best position to weigh all relevant factors and properly sentence the second Respondent based on the evidence and context of the trial.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41 |
Definition of "unduly lenient sentence" as one outside the range a reasonable judge could consider appropriate after applying all relevant factors. |
The court adopted this definition to assess whether the sentences imposed were unduly lenient. |
| Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 1537 |
Requirement that sentencing judges must use the sentencing guideline current at the time of sentencing. |
The court held that the sentencing judge erred by applying an outdated guideline to the first Respondent’s offence. |
| Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 |
Principle that offenders must be sentenced according to the regime applicable at the date of sentence and the need for measured reference to current guidelines for analogous offences when sentencing historical offences. |
The court applied this principle to explain how the judge should have considered the Modern Slavery Act guideline despite the offence being committed earlier under a repealed statute. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed whether the sentencing judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines and whether the sentences were unduly lenient. It found that the judge erred in using the outdated Sexual Offences Act 2003 guideline for the first Respondent instead of the current Modern Slavery Act 2015 guideline, as the latter was in force at sentencing and applicable to the offence.
However, the judge’s error was not deemed sufficient to render the sentence unduly lenient. The judge had balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, and this balancing exercise was within his discretion considering his detailed knowledge from presiding over multiple related trials. The court concluded that even with the correct guideline, the sentence would likely have been adjusted to around 8 years, which did not exceed the range enough to be unduly lenient.
Regarding the second Respondent, the court acknowledged that while a higher sentence might have been appropriate considering multiple harm factors, the judge’s consideration of parity among defendants and his comprehensive understanding of the overall case justified the sentence imposed. The court could not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing judge and found no basis to deem the sentence unduly lenient.
The court emphasised that its conclusions do not diminish the severity of the victim's suffering but focused solely on the appropriateness of the sentences for these two offenders, who played less significant roles than others prosecuted in the broader case.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to refer the sentence imposed on the first Respondent on a point of principle but ultimately held that the sentence was not unduly lenient and declined to interfere with it.
In respect of the second Respondent, the court refused leave to refer the sentence, concluding that the 10-year sentence was within the reasonable range and not unduly lenient.
The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the original sentences without amendment. No new precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles regarding sentencing guidelines and the assessment of unduly lenient sentences.