Fletcher, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge Baker, concerns an appeal against sentence by the Appellant, a male now aged 19, who was convicted in the Crown Court of sexual assault and multiple counts of rape committed in 2024 against two female complainants ("First Complainant" and "Second Complainant"). The offences included sexual assault and rape of the First Complainant when both were 17, and four rapes of the Second Complainant in August 2024 when she was 16 and the Appellant was 17 or 18. The rapes of the Second Complainant occurred while the Appellant was on bail for the earlier offences. The Appellant was sentenced on 15 April 2025 to an extended sentence of 18 years (13 years custodial term and 5 years extended licence), with other concurrent determinate terms on remaining counts. The Single Judge granted leave to appeal and a representation order. Attorney Wilmott-Lascelles represents the Appellant on appeal. A pre-sentence report, a prison report from The Prison (to which the Appellant was transferred), and victim personal statements were before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was wrong to find that the Appellant planned to rape the Second Complainant while she slept by inducing passivity through cannabis use (relevance to categorisation of culpability as category A).
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed to make an appropriate and material reduction to the custodial term to reflect the Appellant's age and vulnerabilities, such that the 13-year custodial term was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge was wrong to find that the Appellant deliberately used drugs to facilitate the rapes (counts 4–6); that factor was not put to the jury as a deliberate ploy and was not properly available for sentencing as a category A factor.
• The judge failed adequately to reduce the custodial term to reflect the Appellant's youth and vulnerabilities; the Appellant should have received roughly two thirds of the adult sentence or similar allowance for immaturity.

Prosecution's/Submissions at Sentencing

• The prosecution's sentencing note argued that both complainants had been severely damaged by the offences and justified a severe custodial approach.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Baker began by noting the statutory anonymity protections for complainants under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The factual findings made at trial and in sentencing were summarised: the Appellant was controlling, manipulative and lacked remorse; he had an obsession with sexual fantasies, particularly involving sleeping or unconscious women; and he had exploited vulnerabilities in the First Complainant. The judge, having presided at trial, was in a unique position to assess credibility and make findings.

On the counts concerning the Second Complainant (counts 4–6), the judge categorised harm as category 2 (vulnerability in cannabis-induced deep slumber) and culpability as category A, concluding the Appellant had used drugs to facilitate the offending and had planned the rapes. The court accepted that the Appellant's intentions regarding cannabis were relevant to culpability rather than liability to the jury; whether the cannabis use was deliberate did not affect the liability question tried by the jury.

The judge applied the Sentencing Council offence-specific guideline ranges and, taking account of the totality of offending (including earlier offences and the fact the Appellant was on bail), concluded a proper range for the lead offences lay within the higher category 1A range (starting point 15 years, range 13–19 years for a single offence). The judge expressly considered the Appellant's youth and the Sentencing Council guideline on children and young people and R v ZA. He concluded that the Appellant's immaturity and vulnerabilities did not significantly reduce culpability, though they were taken into account in assessing the overall impact of custody, producing a custodial term of 13 years (with a 5-year extended licence) rather than a substantially higher term that would have been appropriate for an older offender.

The Court of Appeal considered the two grounds of appeal in turn. First, it rejected the submission that the category A factor (use of drugs to facilitate offending) was not available to the judge, finding sufficient basis in the evidence, taken as a whole, for the finding that the Appellant intended to induce passivity by cannabis use. Second, the court rejected the submission that the judge failed to apply any available discount for age and vulnerability: the judge had evaluated maturity and behaviour carefully (benefitting from presiding at trial) and had in effect imposed a custodial term reflecting a material but not excessive allowance for youth and vulnerability.

The court also considered alternative sentencing structures and concluded that for an older offender a custodial term of at least 18 years (and by other arithmetic potentially higher) would have been merited; by comparison the 13-year custodial term represented a significant reduction (noted as at least 28% shorter than the term merited for an older offender) and was not too small in the circumstances of this individual case.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal against sentence and upheld the extended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge (an extended sentence of 18 years comprising 13 years' custody and a 5-year extended licence).

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence remains as imposed. The court concluded the sentencing judge acted within proper principle: the categorisation of harm and culpability, the application of the relevant guidelines (including consideration of youth), and the allowance made for maturity and vulnerability were each appropriate on the evidence. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying existing guidelines and the decision in R v ZA to the facts of this case.