WAG, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for review on the grounds that the sentences imposed were unduly lenient. The offender, aged 39, was convicted by a jury of nine counts of sexual offences against his stepdaughter, beginning when she was 13 years old and continuing over 2½ years. The Crown Court sentenced him to a total of 15 years' imprisonment, with the sentence imposed solely on the lead offence of rape (count 7), and no separate penalties for the other counts. The Solicitor General contends that the sentence should be increased and that the offender should have been found dangerous, warranting an extended sentence. The Court granted leave to review the sentences.

The sexual offences involved multiple counts including sexual activity with a child family member, assault by penetration, inciting sexual activity, rape, and attempted rape. The offending took place primarily in the family home while the victim's mother worked night shifts, leaving the offender as the sole adult carer. The victim disclosed the abuse to her mother in July 2022. The offender denied the allegations throughout the proceedings.

The offender has no previous convictions and had been involved in charitable work with vulnerable children and adults, which was noted as partial mitigation. However, a pre-sentence report indicated the offender showed no remorse or insight, posed a high risk of serious harm to children, and met the criteria for dangerousness. The victim and her mother provided victim personal statements describing catastrophic impact on the victim’s wellbeing and education.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed were unduly lenient and should be increased.
2. Whether the offender should have been found dangerous, thereby justifying an extended sentence.
3. The appropriateness of the sentencing approach taken by the Crown Court judge in imposing no separate penalties on counts other than the lead offence.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The lead sentence on the rape count (count 7) required upward adjustment to reflect the full extent of offending.
• The offender ought to have been found dangerous, warranting an extended determinate sentence.
• The total sentence of 15 years failed to reflect the seriousness and persistence of the offending.

Offender's Counsel's Arguments

• The relationship between the offender and the victim's mother was not engineered to gain access to the victim.
• The offender's longstanding charitable work with vulnerable children and adults should be considered mitigating.
• The judge was entitled to decline a finding of dangerousness; his reasoning was sound and free from error.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court upheld the application for leave to review the sentences and found the sentencing approach taken by the Crown Court judge flawed in respect of imposing no separate penalties on eight of the nine counts. The Court explained that even symbolic sentences on multiple counts are important and that failing to impose separate penalties risks sentencing issues if the lead conviction is quashed on appeal. The Court emphasised that the sentencing judge must ensure the total sentence reflects the aggregate offending properly rather than simply increasing the lead offence category.

The Court acknowledged the difficulty judges face in sentencing multiple sexual offences over a prolonged period due to limited detailed guidance on totality in such cases. The Court found the totality of offending close to a "campaign of rape," causing catastrophic lifelong harm to the victim.

Consequently, the Court concluded the original total sentence of 15 years was unduly lenient and determined an appropriate total sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences imposed on each count to reflect their individual seriousness. However, the Court upheld the Crown Court judge’s decision to decline a dangerousness finding, finding no error in his reasoning, and therefore the sentence remained determinate rather than extended.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted leave to refer the sentences for review and QUASHED the original sentences imposed by the Crown Court judge. It imposed new concurrent sentences on all counts, with the lead rape offence (count 7) carrying an 18-year determinate sentence. The other counts received sentences ranging from 5 to 11 years, concurrent to the lead sentence.

The Court declined to find the offender dangerous, thus the sentence remains determinate, meaning the offender will be eligible for release after serving two-thirds of the term. The decision clarifies that sentencing multiple offences requires careful imposition of separate concurrent sentences to avoid procedural and substantive difficulties, but does not set new legal precedent beyond the facts of this case.