Anonymized Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a reference by the Attorney General for leave to refer an allegedly unduly lenient sentence imposed in the Crown Court. The Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of nine counts of serious sexual offending against three victims (referred to here as Victim 1, Victim 2 and Victim 3). The trial verdict was returned on 26 March 2025 and sentence was imposed on 3 July 2025 by Judge Pema at The Crown Court in The City.

The aggregate sentence imposed by Judge Pema was an extended sentence of 16 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act, comprising a custodial term of 12 years' imprisonment with an extended licence period of 4 years. Count 3 (rape of Victim 1) was treated as the lead offence for sentencing. The Attorney General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient; leave was granted.

Briefly summarised facts (as found or set out in the sentencing materials): the Defendant committed indecent assaults and rape against Victim 1 when she was aged 16, which led to pregnancy and the later stillbirth of that pregnancy with consequent physical and psychological harm to Victim 1. Later, in separate periods, the Defendant exposed himself to and made sexualised approaches to Victim 2 (aged 9–10 at the time) and Victim 3 (aged 11–12 at the time), including sexualised conversation, exposure and requests to put his penis on Victim 3. The offending came to light in January 2021 after disclosures by Victim 3 and Victim 2; Victim 1 reported matters shortly afterwards. Forensic DNA testing of tissue from Victim 1's stillborn child provided moderately strong support that the Defendant was the father.

The Defendant denied the allegations throughout. He was convicted by a jury and a pre-sentence report assessed his risk of further seriously harmful offending as high. The Defendant had a limited offending history not involving sexual offending. Victim impact statements described severe and long-lasting psychological harm to all three victims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Crown Court for the Defendant's offending was unduly lenient and therefore required intervention by this Court on referral by the Attorney General.
2. Whether the rape offence (count 3) was categorised correctly under the applicable Historic Sexual Offences Guideline—specifically whether it should have been categorised as 2B (as the sentencing judge held) or elevated to category 1B because of extreme harm (including pregnancy complications and severe psychological harm).
3. Whether the totality principle and the appropriate reflection of the offending against Victim 2 and Victim 3 were adequately reflected in the sentence on the lead count (count 3), given the concurrent sentences imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was wrong to categorise the rape (count 3) as category 2B; it should have been placed in category 1B because of the extreme nature and impact of the pregnancy and the severe psychological harm to Victim 1.
• The judge failed adequately to reflect the totality of the Defendant's offending against all three victims when imposing concurrent sentences, and therefore the sentence on count 3 did not reflect the aggregate criminality.
• Given the multiple aggravating features and lack of substantial mitigation, a significant upward adjustment to the notional sentence for count 3 was required, and the overall sentence was unduly lenient.

Defendant's Arguments (represented by Attorney Semple)

• The sentencing judge had the advantage of presiding over the trial and was best placed to assess credibility and all sentencing factors; his categorisation and overall sentence were within the range of reasonable outcomes.
• Although the combined effect of the offending against Victim 2 and Victim 3 might have justified more than the 2-year uplift applied by the judge, the judge's approach was permissible and the final sentence was, with realism, at the upper end of a reasonable range.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's categorisation and totality analysis with reference to the Historical Sexual Offences Guideline and the sentencing exercise as performed below. The court's reasoning proceeded in identifiable steps:

1. Guideline categorisation for count 3: The court assessed whether the facts and their consequences amounted to "extreme" harm under the guideline. It concluded that the combination of Victim 1's pregnancy, the medical complications, the stillbirth (loss of the child almost at full term) and the severe, long-term psychological harm were sufficiently extreme to elevate the offence from category 2B to category 1B.
2. Passage of time: The court accepted the Attorney General's submission that the passage of 22 years had clarified and, in this case, aggravated the seriousness of the harm, making the extreme impact of the offence apparent and relevant to categorisation.
3. Aggravating features: The court identified multiple aggravating features applicable to count 3 that should exert upward pressure on the notional sentence, including that the offending occurred in Victim 1's home, planning by the Defendant (waiting until the grandfather was at hospital), efforts to conceal the offending (persuading Victim 1 not to tell others), a significant age gap, grooming behaviour, vulnerability of the victim and the Defendant's drug use at the time.
4. Reflection of counts 1 and 2: The court noted that, provided double counting is avoided, the effects of counts 1 and 2 (the indecent assaults on Victim 1) must be reflected in the sentence for count 3.
5. Assessment of an appropriate notional sentence for count 3 alone: On re-appraisal, the court concluded that the correct starting point on count 3 alone was 12 years' custody (category range 10–15 years) and that, taking aggravating features into account, the sentence on count 3 should have been not less than 13½ years.
6. Totality and aggregate sentence: The court then considered the additional weight to reflect the offending against Victim 2 and Victim 3. While not criticising the concurrent sentences of 18 months imposed for some counts, the court accepted that the combined offending against Victim 2 and Victim 3 warranted further uplift above the sentence for count 3 alone. Viewing the case as a whole, the court identified the least custodial sentence that properly reflected all offending was 16½ years' custody, producing an extended sentence of 20½ years including the 4-year extended licence period.
7. Conclusion on undue leniency: The court determined that the aggregate sentence imposed by the sentencing judge (extended sentence of 16 years comprising 12 years' custody and 4 years' licence) was unduly lenient and therefore required increase on referral by the Attorney General.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court quashed the sentence imposed on count 3 and substituted an extended sentence of 20½ years comprising a custodial term of 16½ years with an extended licence period of 4 years. The overall total sentence was adjusted to reflect that change. The order for payment of the victim surcharge was quashed; all other orders remained as before.

Implications: The direct effect of this decision is an increase in the Defendant's custodial term from 12 years to 16½ years (with the extended licence period unchanged at 4 years) and the quashing of the victim surcharge order. The court's reasoning clarified that the extreme impact of pregnancy complications and severe psychological harm—especially when the passage of time demonstrates aggravated harm—can elevate a historic sexual offence into a higher guideline category. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of existing guideline principles to these facts.

This summary has been fully anonymized and restricted to information contained in the provided opinion.