Anonymised Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Appellant for leave to appeal against sentence imposed after conviction for sexual offences. The Complainant, who is entitled to statutory anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, is referred to in the opinion as the victim. To preserve anonymity the court also anonymised a friend of the Complainant; the Appellant was not anonymised in the original transcript and is referred to throughout as the Appellant in this summary.

Key facts (as found at trial): On 8 July 2019 the Complainant (aged 15) and her friend (also aged 15) were at the Appellant's home. The Appellant was 24 at the time. Alcohol and cannabis were consumed. The Appellant digitally penetrated the Complainant (count 1) and later vaginally raped her (count 2), ejaculating without protection. A neighbour reported hearing distress. The total episode was described as lasting about 40 minutes. The Complainant reported the matter to police and proceedings followed.

Procedural history: The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court at The City and convicted on 24 February 2023 of assault by penetration (count 1) and rape (count 2). On 27 April 2023 the trial judge (Judge Head) sentenced the Appellant to consecutive terms of four years six months (count 1) and seven years six months (count 2), a total of 12 years' imprisonment.

An initial application for leave to appeal against sentence (single ground: failure to take sufficient account of totality) was made by trial counsel and refused on the papers by a single judge on 30 August 2023; the decision was notified in early September 2023. No immediate renewal followed. In May 2025, about 20 months later, the Appellant—now represented by new solicitors and leading counsel (Attorney Heeley)—sought an extension of time to renew the original application, sought leave to amend the grounds of appeal to add four further grounds, and sought leave to adduce fresh expert evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted to permit renewal of the original application for leave to appeal against sentence after a delay of approximately 20 months.
2. Whether leave should be granted to amend the grounds of appeal to add four additional grounds well out of time.
3. Whether leave should be granted to adduce fresh expert evidence (psychological reports) pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
4. On the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal: (a) whether the sentencing judge relied on inadmissible material; (b) whether there was error in offence categorisation; (c) whether the principle of totality was improperly applied; and (d) whether the absence of a psychological report rendered the sentence unsafe or excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by Attorney Heeley)

• The initial ground relied on at trial counsel level was that the sentence was manifestly excessive for want of proper consideration of totality.
• The perfected grounds proposed by Attorney Heeley and sought to be added were: (1) the sentencing judge was wrongly exposed to inadmissible material (a prosecution "summary of sexual behaviour"); (2) error in the categorisation of culpability (submitted that categorisation should have been lower and aggravating factors overstated); (3) insufficient consideration of totality (overlaps with the original ground); and (4) absence of a psychological report—relying on two reports prepared by Expert Rothenberg—which, it was submitted, materially affected assessment of culpability and/or the appropriate length of sentence.
• Specific submissions included that the judge may have subconsciously been influenced by the inadmissible material despite stating he would disregard it, that the judge overstated planning and the role of alcohol as an instrument to facilitate offending, and that mitigating factors (including age, delay in charging and good interim behaviour) were insufficiently considered.
• As to the fresh evidence, the Appellant relied on Expert Rothenberg's reports which opined that a confluence of factors affected the Appellant's impulse control and judgment at the relevant time and identified autism-like traits, arguing these matters warranted reconsideration of culpability and of sentence length or impact.

Respondent's Position

The opinion does not contain a detailed, itemised account of the Respondent's oral or written arguments beyond the court's summary of the issues and the court's own analysis. The court does, however, record that it received written and oral submissions from both Attorney Heeley and Attorney Harris and addresses the Appellant's points in its reasoning.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Bennett [2023] EWCA Crim 795	The court's established approach to late applications: when deciding whether to extend time the court examines all circumstances including length of delay, reasons for delay and the interests of justice.	The court applied this approach to the Appellant's request for an extension of time, considering the length and reasons for the delay and the overall interests of justice when determining whether to reopen the sentencing issue.
R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285; [2018] 1 WLR 2749 (at [4])	Recognition that legitimate grounds of appeal may occasionally emerge many months or years later, though such cases are rare.	The court cited this proposition when assessing the fresh evidence application and the timing of the proposed ground based on Expert Rothenberg's reports, noting the rarity and outlining factors that weighed against admitting the late material.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in two main stages: (1) consideration of delay and whether an extension of time and permission to amend should be granted; and (2) assessment of the merits of the proposed grounds and of the proposed fresh evidence.

Delay and extension of time

• The court applied the approach identified in R v Bennett: examine length of delay, reasons for delay, and the overall interests of justice.
• The court accepted that the Appellant instructed new solicitors promptly after the single-judge refusal in September 2023 and that work was undertaken to investigate appeals against conviction as well as sentence; Expert Rothenberg's first report was received on 1 November 2024 and an addendum on 11 February 2025 prompted reconsideration of sentence. Other contributing factors included the need to raise funds, obtain transcripts and obtain comments from trial counsel.
• Nevertheless, the court found that three of the four new grounds were independent of the expert evidence and that overall a delay of about 20 months was not justifiable for reopening the sentence issue. The court emphasised that unjustified delay is not necessarily determinative but is a significant factor to be weighed against the applicant.

Merits of the proposed grounds and fresh evidence

Ground 1 — Inadmissible material

The court rejected the contention that the sentencing judge had been influenced by the prosecution's "summary of sexual behaviour" despite ruling it inadmissible. The court reasoned that experienced judges are trained to disregard irrelevant material and that there was nothing in the sentencing remarks or elsewhere to suggest the judge failed to do so.

Ground 2 — Error in categorisation

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to the categorisation he applied. The judge had seen and heard all the evidence at trial and was entitled to find a significant disparity in age and that the Complainant was more vulnerable than average. The court accepted the trial judge's finding that the conduct showed planning (not merely opportunistic or spur-of-the-moment behaviour) and that the Appellant facilitated alcohol consumption for a reason. The court rejected submissions that the judge had erred in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, including the contention that prosecution delay or the Appellant's interim behaviour should have reduced culpability.

Ground 3 — Totality

The court found no merit in the contention that the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of totality. The judge expressly considered totality, correctly treated the incidents as at least arguably separate episodes, and gave alternative reasoning in case they were treated as one sustained incident. The court concluded that the overall 12-year sentence was within the proper range and that any challenge on totality was not arguable.

Ground 4 — Absence of a psychological report (fresh evidence)

• The court analysed Expert Rothenberg's reports and identified four salient points from the reports and the context: (a) the expert's conclusion that the Appellant's impulse control and judgement "would have" been affected to a clinically significant extent did not address the Appellant's specific behaviour at the time of the offences; (b) the reports relied heavily on childhood diagnoses (ADHD) and observed traits of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but did not positively diagnose a current, recognised mental health disorder; (c) neither the Appellant nor his trial team sought a report at trial or for sentence despite apparent awareness of childhood diagnoses and experienced practitioners being involved; and (d) the trial judge's primary factual findings (planned, predatory behaviour, use of drugs to facilitate offending and persistence despite protest) were not materially undermined by the expert's opinion.
• The court expressly noted that, on the material before it, Expert Rothenberg's analysis might even have supported a finding of dangerousness. The court also observed that the expert's views about the harshness of imprisonment and its effect on rehabilitation did not alter the inevitability of a lengthy sentence on the facts.
• Accordingly, the court concluded that the proposed fresh evidence did not provide an arguable basis to overturn or reduce the sentence.

Overall conclusion of reasoning

Weighing delay, the explanatory material and the merits, the court concluded that the proposed grounds lacked arguable merit and that the fresh evidence would not have materially affected the sentencing assessment. The court therefore determined that neither extension of time nor permission to amend the grounds nor admission of the fresh evidence should be granted.

Holding and Implications

Core ruling: The court refused the Appellant's application for an extension of time to renew the original ground of appeal, refused leave to amend the grounds of appeal to add the four proposed grounds, and refused the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence. The Appellant's attempt to reopen the sentence issue was therefore dismissed.

Implications and consequences:

• Direct effect: The Appellant's sentence of 12 years' imprisonment remains undisturbed and the proposed appeal grounds (and fresh expert evidence) will not be considered on their merits in this court.
• Precedential effect: The decision applies established principles (as cited: R v Bennett and R v James) concerning extension of time and late emerging grounds of appeal. The court declined to admit late grounds or fresh evidence on the facts and reasons given; it did not establish a new legal test or depart from existing authorities.
• Practical note implicit in the reasoning: unexplained or substantial delay in seeking to reopen settled sentencing decisions is materially prejudicial to the prospects of obtaining permission to advance new grounds or evidence, particularly where the trial judge had the advantage of observing witnesses and the evidence at first instance.

This summary is strictly confined to the information contained in the provided opinion and uses consistent anonymisation placeholders for people and locations. No material not present in the opinion has been added.