M, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by HM Solicitor General seeking leave to refer a sentence on the grounds that it is unduly lenient and to increase it upon referral. The offender, a 38-year-old male, was sentenced on 19 December 2024 by His Honour Judge Singh in the Crown Court at Grimsby to 14 years' imprisonment for 18 serious sexual offences against two child victims, sisters aged 11 and 13 at the time of the offences. The offences ranged from sexual assaults to multiple counts of rape and penetrative sexual activity, involving complex counts with some pleaded guilty and others convicted after trial.

The offender was regarded as a stepfather figure to the victims, trusted by their mother, and the offending occurred in contexts of trust and grooming over a period. Following disclosure by the victims and investigation, the offender was arrested, interviewed, and convicted. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences with a lead offence count receiving 14 years' imprisonment intended to reflect the total criminality. The Solicitor General challenges the sentence as unduly lenient, particularly regarding categorisation of offences and totality of sentencing across multiple victims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the rape offences against the older victim as category 3A rather than category 2A due to the victim’s particular vulnerability arising from her age.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to reflect the totality of offending, particularly the impact of offences against the second victim, in the cumulative sentence imposed.
3. Whether the overall sentence of 14 years' imprisonment was unduly lenient in light of the nature and totality of the offences against both victims.

Arguments of the Parties

HM Solicitor General's Arguments

• The rape offences against the older victim were wrongly categorised as category 3A; they should have been category 2A due to her particular vulnerability, primarily her young age, which is a recognised aggravating factor under the sentencing guidelines.
• The sentence did not sufficiently reflect the totality of offending, especially considering there were two victims, and the sentence for the lead offence did not appropriately account for the offences against the younger victim.

Sentencing Judge's Approach (as challenged)

• The judge accepted abuse of trust as culpability A but concluded the victim’s age did not amount to "particularly vulnerable" personal circumstances, thus categorising the offences as category 3A rather than 2A.
• The judge imposed a global sentence of 14 years on the lead offence count intended to cover all offences against the older victim and ordered the sentences relating to the younger victim to run concurrently, declining to increase the total sentence further to reflect multiple victims.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Saunders [2022] EWCA Crim 264	Interpretation of the guideline factor "victim is particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances" in sexual offence sentencing.	The court relied on this precedent to consider that young age, even at 13, constitutes a particular vulnerability factor warranting higher categorisation under the sentencing guidelines.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation under the Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline, particularly the factor of victim vulnerability due to personal circumstances. The judge initially rejected categorising the offences as category 2A, interpreting "particularly vulnerable" narrowly. The court disagreed, referencing precedent that age, especially being at the youngest end of the 13+ age cohort, constitutes a material vulnerability factor warranting category 2A classification.

Despite finding this error in categorisation, the court emphasized that the sentencing process must be viewed holistically, focusing on the final global sentence's proportionality to all offending. The judge’s sentence of 14 years was constructed by starting with the guideline range for single offences, adjusting for multiple offences, and considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including abuse of trust, previous convictions, emotional blackmail, guilty pleas, and early admissions.

The court accepted that the judge erred in not increasing the overall sentence to reflect offending against the second victim separately, either by increasing the lead sentence or ordering consecutive sentences. However, it concluded that this error did not render the sentence unduly lenient. The sentence was lenient but remained within an acceptable range of judicial discretion.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to the Solicitor General to refer the case but ultimately DISMISSED THE REFERENCE, upholding the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

The direct effect is that the 14-year imprisonment sentence for the offender stands unaltered. The court signalled that while the sentencing judge made errors in categorisation and presentation of sentences in a multi-victim case, these errors did not justify increasing the sentence. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming the correct application of vulnerability factors in sexual offence sentencing guidelines and the importance of reflecting totality in multi-victim cases.