RDP, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge [Last Name], concerns an application for leave to appeal sentence made on behalf of a child (the Appellant), now aged 16. The application was referred to the court by the Registrar. Reporting restrictions were in place under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 preventing publication that might identify the Appellant; the case was listed using the cipher "RDP" in the original opinion and the section 45 restrictions continue until the Appellant turns 18. Lifetime reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied to the complainants, who are referred to as Complainant 1, Complainant 2, Complainant 3 and Complainant 4.

The Appellant was convicted after a trial in the Youth Court on 28 January 2025 and committed for sentence under section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2020 on multiple sexual offences against four young complainants (including two counts of rape, assault by penetration, oral rape and sexual assault). On 18 July 2025, in the Crown Court, the Appellant (then aged 16) was sentenced on the lead committal offence (rape of Complainant 4) to an extended sentence comprising an eight-year custodial term with a six-year extended licence; concurrent determinate sentences were imposed on the remaining offences. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a restraining order were made and are not challenged on this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall custodial sentence (an eight-year custodial term) imposed on the Appellant was excessive in light of his youth and other mitigation.
2. Whether the six-year extended licence period was excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney [Dyer])

• The overall custodial term was too long for someone who first offended at 14 and was still very young at the time of the final offence; custody was inevitable but the length was excessive and damaging to prospects of rehabilitation.
• The Appellant's immaturity, restricted social exposure, exposure to internet pornography, strict religious upbringing and current conditions in the detention centre undermined rehabilitation and warranted a shorter custodial term.
• The six-year extension period (three quarters of the maximum) was disproportionate and "crushing" given the Appellant's capacity to complete rehabilitation in a shorter period.
• No challenge was made to the finding of dangerousness or to ancillary orders.

Prosecution's Arguments (Attorney [Culver])

• The offences were very serious, involving repeated rapes and assaults of four separate young victims and planning and breach of bail.
• The sentencing judge was correct to treat custody as the only appropriate disposal and to proceed to determine the appropriate custodial term informed by the guidelines.
• The judge properly accounted for youth by reductions from notional adult sentences; the eight-year custodial term was appropriate for the overall seriousness.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasised the difficulty of sentencing children for very serious offences and the primary aims of the youth justice system (prevention of offending, welfare and rehabilitation). The panel noted that the sentencing judge adopted a careful, thorough approach, having regard to child-specific sentencing principles and relevant assessments (Youth Justice reports, pre-sentence reports, an Aim3 assessment and a psychiatric report) and victim input.

The sentencing judge selected the final rape (against Complainant 4) as the lead offence and treated the remaining counts as concurrent. To determine the custodial term he referred to the adult guideline for rape to identify the appropriate category: he categorised the lead offence as Category 3A (using alcohol to render Complainant 4 drunk) while observing it could arguably be Category 2A given the victim's vulnerability; the judge increased the notional term to reflect the cumulative seriousness and allowed only a limited reduction for youth for the lead offence.

The judge assessed ongoing risk and found the Appellant met the statutory threshold for dangerousness, concluding an extended sentence was necessary. Determinate concurrent terms were set for other offences with reductions for age; an eight-year custodial term was imposed for the lead offence with a six-year extended licence.

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the sentencing judge had erred in principle or imposed an excessive sentence. The appellate panel determined that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the child sentencing guidance (including the instruction to consider adult guidelines as a tool and to apply proportionate reductions for youth), had properly categorised the lead offence, had taken account of all reports and expert assessments, and had legitimate concerns about empathy, insight and risk that justified a lengthy extension period. The panel found no basis to interfere with the sentencing exercise.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Decision: The court refused the application for leave to appeal; the original sentence (an eight-year custodial term with a six-year extended licence, concurrent determinate sentences on other counts, and ancillary orders) stands.

Implications: The refusal leaves the Crown Court sentence intact and does not create new precedent beyond applying established child-sentencing guidance and statutory criteria for dangerousness; the decision's direct effect is to maintain the sentence and extended licence as imposed.