Enodolomwanyi, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a jury trial in The Crown Court in The City before Judge Bradshaw, the Appellant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. The conviction was followed by sentencing on 10 October 2024, when Judge Bradshaw imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years and six months comprised of a custodial term of five years and six months and an extended licence period of four years. The Appellant, who was 52 at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions, appealed against sentence with leave of a single judge. The opinion summarised here was delivered by Judge Lewis on that appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge (Recorder) was wrong to conclude that the Appellant satisfied the statutory test of dangerousness and therefore whether imposing an extended sentence was justified.
2. Whether the custodial portion of the imposed sentence (five years and six months) was manifestly excessive having regard to the facts of this attempted kidnapping, the Appellant's mental health, his lack of previous convictions, and the fact that the offence was an attempt rather than a completed kidnapping.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Whitty)

• The Recorder was wrong to conclude that the Appellant was a dangerous offender and therefore wrong to impose an extended sentence.
• The custodial element of the sentence was manifestly excessive because:
  • It failed to reflect the absence of aggravating features that commonly make kidnapping particularly serious;
  • There was insufficient credit for the fact that the offence was an attempt rather than a completed kidnapping;
  • The Recorder did not adequately reflect the Appellant's reduced culpability due to his mental health (untreated psychotic symptoms);
  • The Recorder was wrong, on the evidence including psychiatric evidence, to treat sexual motivation as an aggravating feature;
  • The Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant's personal mitigation, including age (52) and lack of previous convictions.

The opinion does not set out detailed responsive arguments from the prosecution or other parties beyond the Recorder's sentencing reasoning and the contents of the pre-sentence and psychiatric reports.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in a sequence reflecting the two grounds of appeal. It began by setting out the factual matrix: on a November evening the Appellant stopped his car twice, approached the Victim (a female walking to work), tried to persuade her to get into his car, grabbed her clothing and hands, threatened to punch her, and unsuccessfully attempted to force her into the vehicle; colleagues intervened and called the police. The victim impact statement described significant fear and disruption to the Victim's life.

The Appellant was 52, had no convictions, had experienced the recent death of his wife, had four children (two in local authority foster care), and was assessed in pre-sentence reports as presenting a high risk of harm to the public, particularly to women. A psychiatric report concluded the Appellant was exhibiting untreated psychotic symptoms at the time and reported hearing voices which identified the Victim as someone with whom he should form a relationship; the voices did not instruct him to kidnap or harm her.

The Recorder's sentencing analysis was described as detailed and thorough: he acknowledged the offence was an attempt, took into account applicable pre-2025 case law guidance on kidnapping and factors relevant to gravity, noted some limited planning and persistence (turning the car and returning), recognized limited actual violence (grabbing) but also a threatened greater violence (threat to punch), and considered the impact on the Victim. The Recorder accepted the Appellant's mental disorder reduced culpability to a limited extent, took into account lack of previous convictions and family separation, and concluded the Appellant met the statutory test of dangerousness based substantially on the assessments in the pre-sentence and addendum reports.

The appellate court reviewed these findings. On the second ground (manifest excessiveness of the custodial term), the court agreed the offence was serious but found the case unusually particular in factual circumstances. Critically, on the evidence as a whole — including the psychiatric evidence — the appellate court concluded the Recorder was not entitled to be sure that the Appellant intended to inflict serious sexual harm on the Victim. The psychiatric evidence suggested the Appellant believed the Victim was “the woman” he should form a relationship with; the voices did not command kidnapping or harm. Given those particular facts, the appellate court considered it impermissible to infer a purpose to cause serious sexual harm and therefore found the five years and six months custodial term to be manifestly excessive for this attempted kidnapping.

On the first ground (dangerousness/extended sentence), the appellate court examined the Recorder's reasoning and the material before him. It concluded there was no proper basis to find the Recorder erred: the Appellant had preyed on a woman, used threats and force in an attempt to abduct her, and both the initial pre-sentence report and the addendum report assessed that the Appellant satisfied the statutory dangerousness test (a significant risk of causing serious harm to women by commission of further offences). In light of the offence circumstances and the professional assessments, the Recorder was entitled to impose an extended sentence.

Balancing these conclusions, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part: it found the custodial term manifestly excessive in light of the absence of reliable evidence of an intent to cause serious sexual harm, but upheld the dangerousness finding and the appropriateness of an extended sentence in principle.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal against sentence was allowed in part. Ground 2 (that the custodial element was manifestly excessive) was allowed to a limited extent; Ground 1 (that the Recorder was wrong to impose an extended sentence on dangerousness grounds) was dismissed.

Order substituted: The court quashed the original extended determinate sentence of nine years and six months and substituted an extended determinate sentence of eight years, comprising a custodial element of four years and an extended licence period of four years.

Implications

Direct consequences:

• The Appellant's custodial term was reduced from five years and six months to four years while the extended licence period remains four years, so the overall extended determinate sentence is reduced to eight years.
• The appellate court upheld the Recorder's conclusion that the statutory test of dangerousness was met on the material before him and therefore an extended sentence remained appropriate.

Broader legal implications:

The opinion applied and relied upon existing case law on the seriousness and relevant factors in kidnapping cases and considered applicable Sentencing Council materials in relation to mental disorder mitigation. The decision did not purport to establish a new principle of law; it addressed the appropriate application of existing principles to highly particular facts and adjusted the custodial element accordingly.