Revill, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an offender convicted of serious sexual offences against a victim, referred to as V, with whom the offender had a relationship starting when V was 15 and the offender was 17. The offences occurred between late 2021 and early 2023, when V was aged 16 to 17 and the offender 18 to 19. The offender was convicted on four counts of a five-count indictment, including rape and assault by penetration, involving incidents where V was asleep or awake. The offender was sentenced on 14 February 2025 by Mr Recorder King at the Crown Court at Nottingham to a total aggregate sentence of 42 months' imprisonment, which should have been specified as detention. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The offences included a specific rape while V was awake, multiple incidents of assault by penetration while V was asleep, and a further rape where V woke to find the offender penetrating her. Evidence included a video found on the offender’s phone depicting one of the assaults. V provided victim personal statements detailing severe psychological and emotional harm, including depression, therapy, and difficulties in social and educational functioning.

The offender had no previous convictions, presented character references portraying him as a conscientious and kind young man, and was assessed as remorseful though not fully accepting the verdict. The pre-sentence report noted his immaturity and naivety, with a low risk of reoffending. The Recorder considered immaturity as a mitigating factor and reduced the sentence accordingly.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the offender were unduly lenient given the nature and circumstances of the offences.
2. Whether the victim, being asleep during certain offences, qualified as "particularly vulnerable" under the relevant sentencing guidelines.
3. The appropriate categorisation of the offences under the sentencing guidelines, including harm and culpability categories.
4. The extent to which aggravating and mitigating factors, including offender’s youth, immaturity, and character, should influence the sentencing.
5. Whether the aggregate sentence properly reflected the totality of the offending conduct across multiple counts.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• Counts 3 to 5 should be categorised as harm category 2 due to V’s particular vulnerability while asleep, and culpability category A because offences were recorded.
• The starting points for counts 3 and 4 should have been 8 years with a category range of 5 to 13 years.
• Insufficient weight was given to aggravating features such as alcohol influence, ejaculation, domestic context, and manipulative conduct preventing reporting.
• Excessive weight was placed on mitigating factors, particularly the offender’s youth and remorse, the latter being questionable due to his not guilty plea and partial denial post-conviction.
• The sentence on count 5 failed to reflect the cumulative criminality of counts 2 to 4, requiring a substantial uplift if not consecutive sentencing.
• Overall, the starting point for count 5 should have been 10 years, increased for aggravating features and then reduced for youth and immaturity, with further adjustment for additional criminality.

Offender's Arguments

• Accepts that V was particularly vulnerable for counts 3 to 5 but disputes that all offences fall into culpability category A due to recording, as only one video was found and not all offences were proven recorded.
• Emphasises the offender’s positive good character and submits that little weight should be given to conduct that allegedly prevented reporting.
• Highlights the sentencing guideline’s recognition of youth and immaturity mitigating culpability and sentence effect, supported by the Recorder’s approach and relevant case law.
• Argues for significant reduction in sentence based on age, immaturity, and character despite some mischaracterisation in the original sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185	Consideration of youth and immaturity in sentencing young adult offenders, including impact on culpability and sentence effect.	Referenced by the offender's counsel to support the mitigating effect of immaturity and naivety on culpability and sentencing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the serious nature and cumulative effect of the offences, noting the significant harm to the victim. It accepted that the Recorder's categorisation of counts 3 to 5 was incorrect, as the victim being asleep qualified her as "particularly vulnerable" under the sentencing guidelines. The court recognized the risk of a mechanistic application of guidelines potentially producing an excessively long sentence and aimed to achieve a just and proportionate outcome.

The court determined the correct starting point for count 5 was 10 years, reflecting victim vulnerability and the fact the offence was recorded, but did not find justification for further upward adjustment based on other aggravating factors. However, the additional criminality of counts 2 to 4 required a substantial uplift to the sentence on count 5 to reflect totality, concluding that an aggregate sentence below 14 to 15 years would be insufficient.

Regarding mitigation, the court considered the offender's youth, immaturity, and positive character as significant factors warranting a reduction greater than the 25% allowed by the Recorder. Taking these into account, the court found a just aggregate sentence would be approximately nine and a half years.

Ultimately, the court concluded the original sentence of 42 months was unduly lenient and proposed adjusted concurrent sentences of 4 years for count 2, 4.5 years each for counts 3 and 4, and 9.5 years for count 5, all as detention sentences rather than imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the original sentence of 42 months imposed by the Recorder was unduly lenient.

The court imposed revised concurrent sentences of detention: 4 years for count 2, 4.5 years for counts 3 and 4, and 9.5 years for count 5. This reflects a significant uplift to properly account for the totality of offending and the victim's particular vulnerability while balancing the offender’s youth, immaturity, and character mitigation.

The decision directly affects the parties by increasing the offender's sentence substantially to better reflect the gravity of the offences and the harm caused. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing sentencing principles and guidelines to ensure a just and proportionate outcome.