Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The respondent was sentenced on 9 January 2025 by Mr Recorder Enoch KC at the Crown Court at Durham for multiple sexual offences and related matters to which he had pleaded guilty late in the proceedings.
The respondent was convicted of offences including causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, assault by penetration, multiple counts of rape, sexual activity with a child family member, and possession of an offensive weapon. The lead offence was a rape count for which a 13-year imprisonment sentence was imposed, with other sentences ordered concurrently. The total custodial sentence was 13 years, accompanied by a restraining order, a sexual harm prevention order, and a statutory surcharge.
Factual background reveals that the respondent groomed and repeatedly sexually abused his teenage stepdaughter over a period of 3 to 4 years, resulting in the birth of their child. The abuse began when the victim was approximately 12 years old and included multiple rapes. Despite bail conditions prohibiting contact, the respondent persisted in contacting the victim and continued the abusive relationship, including arranging travel away with her and their child. The respondent was arrested multiple times and denied the allegations, asserting a consensual father-daughter relationship.
Procedurally, the respondent initially pleaded not guilty to most charges except possession of an offensive weapon. On the first day of trial, he pleaded guilty to most counts on the indictment, with one count left to lie on file. Sentencing followed on 9 January 2025.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was unduly lenient within the meaning of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the respondent's dangerousness under the statutory criteria.
- The appropriate custodial term and whether an extended sentence should be imposed given the nature and circumstances of the offending.
- The correct application of sentencing guidelines, including those relating to rape, domestic abuse, and campaigns of rape.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The sentencing judge adopted a starting point that was too low, underestimating the seriousness of the totality of the offending, which involved a campaign of repeated rapes over several years.
- A further uplift was necessary to reflect the multiplicity and seriousness of the offences, including distinct offences of sexual activity with a child family member and assault by penetration, and aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability due to age and grooming.
- The judge failed to adequately uplift the sentence to reflect multiple aggravating factors including blackmail, controlling behaviour, use of a secret mobile phone to track the victim, abuse of trust, domestic context, and attempts to conceal evidence.
- The offender met the statutory criteria for dangerousness, contrary to the judge’s conclusion, and the judge erred by placing undue weight on previous good character and the fact that there was only one victim.
- Based on case law, a risk to even a single potential victim suffices to satisfy dangerousness, and the offender’s persistent, prolonged offending and lack of insight indicate a high risk of serious recidivism requiring an extended sentence.
Respondent's Arguments
- The sentence was lenient but not unduly so; the judge correctly found that the offending constituted a “campaign of rape” but questioned the characterization, submitting the respondent believed in a consensual relationship rather than rape.
- There was no obligation to sentence outside the guidelines for a campaign of rape, and the concept does not require the offender to have knowingly engaged in such a campaign.
- The respondent does not pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public; the risk assessment indicated a low risk of further offending, and the offender has no general attraction to children.
- The respondent has expressed genuine remorse and is serving a lengthy sentence with additional orders upon release; therefore, an extended sentence is not necessary.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v JH [2015] EWCA Crim 54; [2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 59 |
Definition and sentencing approach to a "campaign of rape" including multiple rapes on the same victim. |
The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that a campaign of rape can involve multiple rapes on one victim and justify sentencing outside the category range. |
| R v GT [2024] EWCA Crim 961; [2024] 2 Cr App R 47 |
Clarification that severity may be due to the number of offences and that a campaign of rape can justify sentences of 20 years or more. |
The Court applied this authority to support increasing the sentence to reflect the multiplicity and severity of the offending. |
| R v Hashi [1995] 16 Cr App R(S) 121 |
Establishes that risk to even a single potential victim suffices for dangerousness. |
The Court used this case to reject the sentencing judge’s approach that dangerousness could not be found with only one victim. |
| R v Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059; [2015] 2 Cr App R(S) 62 |
Application of dangerousness test post-Criminal Justice Act 2003. |
The Court cited this to confirm the proper approach to dangerousness in the current statutory context. |
| R v Smith [2017] EWCA Crim 252; [2017] 2 Cr App R(S) 2 |
Importance of examining underlying causes of offending for dangerousness assessment. |
The Court relied on this to emphasize the seriousness and persistence of offending and the offender’s lack of insight as indicators of dangerousness. |
| R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 3 |
Definition of "significant risk" in dangerousness assessments. |
The Court referred to this precedent to evaluate the respondent’s risk level and reject the submission that the risk was not significant. |
| Attorney-General's Reference (R v Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 16 |
Principles governing applications for leave to refer sentences as unduly lenient. |
The Court summarized the established principles to guide the assessment of whether the sentence was unduly lenient. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first considered the statutory criteria for dangerousness and found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by concluding the offender did not meet these criteria due to there being only one victim. The Court emphasized that a risk to even a single potential victim suffices to satisfy the dangerousness test. The evidence, including the pre-sentence report, indicated a high risk of serious recidivism and harm to children generally, not just the victim.
The Court determined that a determinate sentence was insufficient to manage the risk posed and that an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Code 2020 was required to protect the public effectively.
Regarding the custodial term, the Court found the original sentence unduly lenient given the multiplicity, severity, and prolonged nature of the offences, the grooming, and the domestic abuse context. The Court accepted that the offending constituted a "campaign of rape" and that the totality principle must be respected but the sentence must reflect the true gravity of the offending.
The Court concluded that a notional determinate sentence of 20 years was appropriate, reduced by 10% for late guilty pleas to 18 years, with an additional 5-year extension period on licence to protect the public.
The Court also increased the sentences on the other counts to reflect their seriousness, maintaining concurrency but raising individual terms accordingly.
Holding and Implications
The Court granted the application by the Solicitor General to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Court QUASHED the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge and REPLACED them with an extended sentence of 23 years, comprising an 18-year custodial term and a 5-year extension period on licence.
This decision increases the custodial sentences on multiple counts and imposes an extended sentence to address the offender’s dangerousness. The other orders, including the restraining order and sexual harm prevention order, remain in place for life. No new precedent was set beyond the application of existing sentencing principles and dangerousness criteria to the facts of this case.