TMD, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, referred to as "TMD" in compliance with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, was convicted on six counts of rape of a child under 13 following a trial at the Crown Court at Minshull St Manchester before His Honour Judge Savill and a jury. The offences occurred over a period from 2013 to 2021 during which the appellant was in a long-term relationship with the aunt of the complainant. The complainant had been left in the care of the appellant and her aunt from a young age. The appellant engaged in grooming and repeatedly raped the complainant vaginally on at least 13 occasions, resulting in the complainant becoming pregnant and having a termination at age 13. The appellant denied the offences and gave implausible explanations for the pregnancy. At sentencing, the appellant was 38 years old and had a history of unrelated convictions. He was sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 27 years' imprisonment plus one year on licence. The appellant appealed the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total custodial sentence of 27 years for a course of offending against a single complainant was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the severity of the offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that although the offending was serious, it involved only a single complainant and was not aggravated by previous offending against that complainant.
• The appellant argued that the sentence of 27 years was manifestly excessive when compared to sentences for single offences, even of high severity.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the appellant's offending as a campaign of rape against a very young child, occurring on at least 13 occasions over several years. It reaffirmed the classification of the offending as Category 2A, which carries a starting custodial sentence of 13 years per offence, with a range up to 17 years. The court rejected the appellant's characterization of the offending as "on the cusp" of such severity, emphasizing the prolonged and repeated nature of the abuse, the grooming behaviour including supplying alcohol and drugs, and the resulting pregnancy and termination. The court noted the appellant's lack of remorse and absence of meaningful mitigation. The principle of totality was applied to ensure the sentence reflected the aggregate seriousness of all offences committed. The court concluded that the sentence of 27 years was just and proportionate, and not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was DISMISSED.

The decision upholds the original custodial sentence of 27 years plus one year on licence for multiple serious sexual offences against a child. The ruling confirms that sentences must reflect the totality of offending, particularly in cases involving repeated and prolonged abuse, and that a sentence of this length is not excessive in such circumstances. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces existing principles regarding sentencing for multiple serious sexual offences against children.