ACP, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The court opened by confirming that the anonymity protections in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this matter: during the victim's lifetime no publication may include matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the victim. The court confirmed that prohibition at the hearing.

The Appellant is aged 26. On 25 January 2024, at the Crown Court, the Appellant was convicted, after a trial before Judge [Last Name] and a jury, of multiple serious sexual offences. On 18 March 2024 Judge [Last Name] sentenced the Appellant to an aggregate term of 11 years' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed against sentence with permission.

The offending occurred between August 2011 and August 2015. The Complainant was the Appellant's stepbrother. At the time of the offending the Complainant was aged between 6 and 9 and the Appellant between 12 and 16 — both therefore children at the relevant times.

The opinion describes the offending in chronological groups corresponding to trial counts:

• Counts 1–2: when the Complainant was about 6 and the Appellant about 12, the Appellant caused or incited the Complainant to engage in sexual activity (masturbation of the Appellant).
• Counts 3–4: later, when the Appellant was at secondary school and the Complainant still at primary school, the Appellant pressed the Complainant to perform oral sex; on one occasion the Appellant pushed the penis further into the Complainant's mouth, causing gagging.
• Counts 5–6: when the Complainant was about 9 the Appellant showed pornographic material and then forced his penis into the Complainant's anus, causing pain; the Appellant continued despite protest and subsequently made the Complainant masturbate him; these acts were repeated.
• Count 7: a final occasion (by then the Appellant was 16 and the Complainant 9) when the Appellant again forced anal penetration; on one occasion the Appellant struck the Complainant at the back of the head and blamed him.

The Complainant did not disclose the wrongdoing until 2020, when he mentioned it in a letter to his parents. The Appellant was arrested, answered "no comment" in police interview and provided a prepared statement denying the offending while conceding that they had watched adult films and imitated them "in a playful manner." The Appellant maintained denial at trial and was convicted as described above.

For sentencing the court had extensive material: a pre-sentence report, an intermediary report (6 April 2023), two psychiatric reports (14 April and 26 June 2023) and a joint experts' report dated 12 January 2024. Much of that material had been generated by a prior question whether the Appellant was fit to plead; the psychiatric experts agreed he was fit to plead but noted depression and anxiety and differed on evidence of autistic spectrum disorder.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 11 years imposed on count 7 (treated as the lead offence) was excessive or incorrectly calculated such that it should be quashed or reduced.
2. Whether Judge [Last Name] gave adequate discount and proper consideration to the Appellant's age at the time of the offences and his vulnerabilities (psychiatric and cognitive reports), and whether the sentencing approach accorded with the authorities and guidelines governing sentencing of children and young people for sexual offences.
3. How the principles in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 (and the appellant's reliance on R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596) and the Sentencing Council guidance for children should inform the overall sentence and the process by which a sentencing judge should state adult-equivalent and age-adjusted terms.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge gave insufficient reduction in sentence to reflect the Appellant's age at the time of the offending.
• The judge failed adequately to have regard to the available material, notably the psychiatric and psychological reports and the Appellant's vulnerabilities.
• The judge did not apply properly the principles identified in R v Ahmed and R v ZA when sentencing a defendant for offences committed as a child.
• As counsel's written grounds argued, the overall sentence should have been materially lower than imposed (these points were advanced by Attorney [Last Name] in the written advice and grounds of appeal).

The opinion records the appellate court's view that some of these criticisms were vague and unfair to the sentencing judge; in particular it observed that criticism of a notional "starting point of 16 years" mischaracterised the judge's remarks.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281	The five-step approach for sentencing children and young people for sexual offences; guidance to have regard to relevant children’s guidelines and to consider an adult-equivalent sentence then apply reductions for youth and vulnerabilities (see guidance at [24]–[30]).	The court relied on Ahmed to state the correct process: assess seriousness, consider aggravating factors, apply personal mitigation (including disabilities and youth), consider reduction for plea (if any), and then review the sentence (including reference to adult equivalent). Applying Ahmed produced the view that the overall custodial term should have been around 9 years.
R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596	Cited by the appellant as part of authorities on sentencing young offenders for sexual offences.	The court considered R v ZA but concluded that it "adds nothing" to the approach set out in R v Ahmed for the purpose of this appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by observing that the sentencing exercise was difficult and that Judge [Last Name] approached it with care. It accepted that the judge was right to calculate individual sentences for each offence in the way she did and to take account of the principle of totality by treating count 7 as the lead offence because the Appellant was oldest then. The appellate court therefore found no fault with the calculation of individual concurrent sentences for the lesser counts.

The court identified a specific, limited error: the fixing of the 11-year term on count 7 as the overall sentence to reflect the Appellant's criminality as a whole was not adequately explained. The appellate court emphasised that the calculation of the final aggregate term should have been transparently set out.

The court explained the methodology it would have expected. It stated that the sentencing judge should have:

1. stated the overall term that would have been imposed had the Appellant been an adult, and then
2. stated the term to be imposed having regard to the Appellant's age at the time of the offending and his particular vulnerabilities.

The court gave two routes by which the correct overall term (around nine years' imprisonment) could be demonstrated.

Route one (a factual-adaptive exercise): If the offending had been prosecuted shortly after the last offence, the responsible judge would likely have concluded, after considering the period and escalation, that the adult sentence for the offending as a whole would be about 16 years. Significant reductions — to reflect the defendant's vulnerabilities and especially his youth at the time of offending — would then have been applied, yielding an adjusted total in the region of 9 years.

Route two (the Ahmed five-step framework): the court applied the five-step approach set out in R v Ahmed:

• Step 1 — Assess seriousness: The case involved penetrative activity with coercion/exploitation/pressure and thus met the threshold for immediate custody under the relevant guideline.
• Step 2 — Aggravating factors: The principal aggravating features were the number of serious offences, the long duration of offending, planning/grooming, and marked disparity of ages (initially the Appellant was twice the age of the Complainant and by the end was 16 while the Complainant was 9).
• Step 3 — Personal mitigation: The most recent psychological report (prepared by Expert [Last Name]) identified Autism Spectrum Condition with Mild Intellectual Disability and Recurrent Depressive Disorder and other vulnerabilities. Taking these into account would have reduced a proximate adult term to around 9 years.
• Step 4 — Guilty plea: Not applicable here (no reduction for plea was available), though the guideline records it can have a significant effect where relevant.
• Step 5 — Review: The court must then stand back and consider all circumstances, including the age at the time of offending. The guideline expressly permits the court, when considering the adult guideline, to apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15–17 (a rough guide, not to be applied mechanistically).

The appellate court noted that while Judge [Last Name] had applied reductions to individual counts consistent with the guideline reductions for youth (for example, substantial discounts for the earlier counts when the Appellant was younger and 50% or one-third reductions for other offences), the final step producing the overall 11-year term did not transparently follow the same course. For that reason the 11-year term on count 7 was held to be manifestly excessive.

The court therefore adjusted the aggregate sentence: it quashed the 11-year term imposed on count 7 and substituted a term of 9 years' imprisonment on that count. All other sentences, which had been made concurrent, remained unaltered.

The court also recorded that it did not regard R v ZA as adding anything to the Ahmed framework for this case.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Holding:

• The appellate court quashed the 11-year sentence imposed on count 7 and substituted a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment on that count.
• All other sentences were left concurrent and therefore unchanged.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

• The Appellant's aggregate custodial exposure was reduced only by the substitution of 9 years for the previously imposed 11 years on count 7; concurrent sentences remain as originally imposed.
• The Complainant's anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 was reaffirmed by the court.

Broader implications:

• The decision illustrates and reinforces the practical application of the five-step approach in R v Ahmed when sentencing offenders for sexual offences committed as children: assess seriousness, identify aggravating factors, apply personal mitigation, consider plea reductions (if any), and then review the sentence (including, where appropriate, reference to an adult-equivalent term to guide the age-adjusted disposal).
• The court emphasised the importance of explaining how an overall aggregate term has been calculated when an individual has multiple offences spanning childhood and adolescence; a judge should set out the adult equivalent and the adjustments for youth and vulnerability to make the totality exercise transparent.
• The court stated that R v ZA did not add to the Ahmed framework in this context; no novel legal principle was established beyond application of the existing guidance.