AIZ, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentencing of an adult appellant, aged 31, convicted of multiple sexual offences committed against his stepsister between the ages of 11 and 15. The offences included oral rape and assault by digital penetration of a child under 13, along with other sexual assaults. The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court to a total of five years' imprisonment. The offences were committed over a sustained period of approximately three and a half years, beginning when the complainant was eight years old and the appellant was 11. The abuse involved repeated sexual touching, digital penetration, and coercion, occurring in various locations within the family home. Following the offending period, the complainant disclosed the abuse, which led to the appellant’s prosecution and conviction after trial for the most serious offences, and guilty pleas for others. The appellant appealed against the sentence with leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of five years was manifestly excessive given the appellant’s age at the time of offending and the circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the principles set out in R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 when sentencing the appellant.
3. Whether the judge erred in distinguishing this case from the precedent case of RW as considered in Ahmed.
4. Whether the starting points for sentences sufficiently reflected the appellant's reduced culpability as a child offender.
5. Whether the discount for youth and mitigation was adequate, specifically whether a two-thirds or three-quarters reduction should have been applied.
6. Whether the judge’s factual finding that the most serious offence (oral rape) occurred when the appellant was 15 was supported by proper evidential foundation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence of five years was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
• The sentencing judge failed to properly apply the general principles from R v Ahmed and Others.
• The judge wrongly distinguished the facts of this case from those in RW, or did so to an excessive degree.
• The starting points for sentencing did not adequately reflect the appellant’s reduced culpability as a child offender.
• The discount for youth and guilty pleas should have been three-quarters rather than two-thirds.
• The judge’s finding that the oral rape occurred when the appellant was 15 was speculative and lacked evidential basis.

Court's Analysis of Arguments

• The judge’s structured approach to sentencing, following the Ahmed guidelines, was meticulous and could not be faulted.
• The judge was best placed to assess culpability and facts, having heard all evidence at trial.
• The judge rejected the appellant’s minimisation of his conduct as consensual childhood experimentation.
• Subsequent conduct by the appellant demonstrated coercion and control, increasing culpability beyond what might have been apparent at the time of offending.
• Differences between this case and RW justified distinguishing the cases on the facts.
• The appellant’s good character was noted but outweighed by the severity and persistence of offending and efforts to silence the complainant.
• The factual basis for the timing of the oral rape offence was uncertain; the court accepted the appellant should be sentenced as if the offence occurred when he was 14, not 15.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the sentencing guidelines for children and young people alongside the adult sentencing guidelines, applying the principles set out in Ahmed. The judge’s approach involved a two-step test assessing the seriousness of offending and whether an adult sentence more severe than that appropriate at the time of offending was justified. The court accepted that the appellant’s culpability was high given the sustained, predatory, and coercive nature of the abuse, and the subsequent manipulation of the complainant to suppress disclosure. The judge properly assessed aggravating factors including grooming, age disparity, persistence, and the complainant’s vulnerability within the family dynamic.

The court found that the judge’s starting points and discounts were appropriate in principle but concluded that the factual finding that the oral rape occurred when the appellant was 15 was not sufficiently supported by evidence. Since most offending occurred before the appellant turned 15, the court accepted the appellant should be sentenced on the basis that he was 14 at the time of the oral rape, reducing culpability and sentence length accordingly. This adjustment led to the conclusion that the original sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court also noted the appellant’s good character and business success but found these mitigating factors outweighed by the severity of the offences and the appellant’s conduct post-offending. The court emphasized the importance of the Ahmed framework in sentencing adults for offences committed as children, confirming its indispensability in such complex cases.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART.

The original sentence of five years for the most serious offence (oral rape) was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years and six months immediate custody. Concurrent sentences of four years for counts 3 and 4 were reduced to three years. Other sentences remained unchanged and all sentences were to run concurrently. The decision directly affects the appellant’s sentence length but does not establish new precedent beyond affirming the application of the Ahmed framework. The ruling underscores the need for precise factual findings when assessing culpability and sentencing in cases involving offences committed by child offenders now adults.