Blachford , R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant applied for leave to refer a sentence imposed by Judge [Last Name] in the Crown Court in The City on 12 August 2025, which the Appellant regarded as unduly lenient. Leave was granted.

The Defendant pleaded guilty at a PTPH to the offence of rape. The Defendant had been employed as an assistant manager at Company A in The City and organised rotas. The victim ("V") also worked at Company A. The parties had a casual sexual relationship described in the material as, and by the parties as, a "friends with benefits" or casual intimacy arrangement.

On 17 February 2024, after a shift at Company A, the Defendant and V were in a staff room. V says the Defendant pushed her against a wall, attempted to kiss her after she said "no" twice, touched her over and under her clothing, removed her clothing and then penetrated her vagina with his penis, ejaculating in her. The Defendant initially gave a partial account denying rape in interview but later accepted in his basis of plea that he had "overstepped the mark" and continued to have sexual intercourse without V's consent.

The Defendant was sentenced by Judge [Last Name] to an immediate custodial term of 3 years and 9 months after a 25% reduction for a guilty plea, the judge having allowed a reduction from an indicated notional sentence of 5 years on account of plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by Judge [Last Name] was unduly lenient and therefore required adjustment on reference by the Appellant.
2. How the offending should be categorised under the relevant sentencing guidelines (in particular whether the case fell within category 2B or category 3B for harm and culpability).
3. What weight should properly be given to aggravating factors (including ejaculation and the engagement of the Domestic Abuse Guideline) and to the Defendant's mitigation (including good character and the timing and nature of the guilty plea) when determining the appropriate sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant submitted the case fell squarely within category 2B having regard to the severe psychological harm suffered by V, and that the appropriate guideline starting point was 8 years.
• The Appellant argued that aggravating features, specifically the applicability of the Domestic Abuse Guideline and the fact of ejaculation, justified an upward adjustment, such that a notional sentence of 60 months before deduction for plea would be appropriate and the actual sentence of 45 months (after plea reduction) was unduly lenient.
• The Appellant urged that the aggravating features should substantially outweigh the Defendant's mitigation.

Defendant's Arguments

• The defence (Attorney Lloyd) submitted the sentence was not unduly lenient and was justifiable given the material before the judge, including the basis of plea and genuine remorse.
• It was submitted the judge was entitled to place the case between categories 2 and 3B or within category 3B, and the judge properly afforded weight to the Defendant's previously exemplary character and immediate remorse.
• The defence urged recognition that defendants in similar factual circumstances rarely plead guilty and that this justified the mitigation allowed, including the 25% reduction for plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a careful, fact-specific assessment rather than a mechanistic application of the guidelines. It recognised the severity of V's psychological harm, as detailed in a lengthy victim personal statement, and acknowledged ejaculation and the context of the parties' pre-existing intimate contact as aggravating features. The court considered authorities and commentary (including Ul Nazir and Rook & Ward) and the applicable sentencing guidelines.

Key analytical steps:

• The court accepted the trial judge's conclusion that the case lay between category 2B and category 3B rather than being a straightforward category 2B matter. That assessment was held to be within the judge's margin of discretion given the evidence on harm.
• Although the Domestic Abuse Guideline applied, the court did not treat it as a major aggravating factor because of the casual, non-committed nature of the parties' relationship as described in the material.
• The court accepted ejaculation as an aggravating factor but noted the prosecution's primary case for category 2B rested on the psychological harm to V rather than ejaculation alone.
• The court determined that, prior to mitigation, a notional sentence of about seven years would be the least sentence that could reasonably have been imposed on the facts of the case (while acknowledging a greater sentence could have been justified).
• Turning to mitigation, the court concluded that a two-year notional reduction for the Defendant's personal mitigation (good character, remorse, lack of previous convictions) was at the outer limit of what could reasonably be given, producing a notional five-year sentence before reduction for plea.
• After recognising the 25% reduction for the guilty plea (the judge in the Crown Court had given that reduction), the resulting sentence was 45 months. The court found that the sentence was lenient and arguably unduly lenient but concluded that it was not so low that this court should interfere with it on reference.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Reference by the Appellant was dismissed. The court concluded that, although the sentence of 45 months' immediate imprisonment was lenient and arguably unduly lenient, it was not so low as to justify intervention by this court on a reference.

Implications: The immediate practical consequence is that the Defendant's sentence of 3 years and 9 months (45 months) after a 25% plea reduction remains undisturbed. The court emphasised the case-specific nature of its reasoning; it did not establish a new general precedent beyond the application of existing guidelines and authorities to the facts presented.