- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Price, R. v
Summary of Opinion — Judge Popplewell
Factual and Procedural Background
The Victim is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer to this court a sentence imposed by Judge Wright in the Crown Court at Sheffield for an offence of rape, contending the sentence was unduly lenient. The sentence imposed on the Offender was a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) with intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS): an extended activity requirement of 91 days, 24 months' supervision and an electronically monitored curfew for three months (8pm–7am).
Relevant facts: at the time of the offence the Offender was 16 (short of 17); he was 17 at conviction and 18 at sentence. The Victim was 17 at the date of the offence. The parties had been drinking at a friend's house; later the Victim fell asleep clothed on a bed and awoke to find the Offender on top of her. He removed her clothing, held her down, inserted a condom and penetrated her despite her protests for approximately two to five minutes; there was blood on the condom. The Offender later gave an account to police and made a no comment interview after arrest. He was charged with rape, pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court. Pre-sentence reports, an addendum report and psychological assessments were prepared and considered at sentencing.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether leave should be granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to permit reference of the sentence on the basis it was unduly lenient (i.e., whether only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified).
- Whether, for the purpose of assessing seriousness, the offending should be categorised under the adult rape guideline as category 2B rather than 3B (impacting the notional adult sentence and its youth-adjusted analogue).
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The offending was so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence could be justified; leave to refer should be granted.
- Relied on R v Grace [2025] EWCA Crim 1047 to support consideration of the adult guideline sentence adjusted for youth when assessing seriousness under the Children and Young People Guidelines.
- Contended the judge mis-categorised the offending under the adult guideline as 3B and that it should have been category 2B because: (a) the Victim suffered severe psychological harm; and/or (b) the Victim was particularly vulnerable by reason of being at a friend’s house and asleep when the incident began.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Grace [2025] EWCA Crim 1047 | That, while the adult guideline is not directly applicable to young people, it is legitimate to consider an adult sentence length adjusted for youth as relevant to assessing seriousness under the Children and Young People Guidelines. | The court observed R v Grace involved more serious offending and that Grace did not provide a basis to displace the judge's evaluation here that the youth-adjusted notional sentence approximated two years (such that, with full credit, immediate custody would have been about two years). |
| R v Saunders [2022] EWCA Crim 264 | That a victim being asleep may constitute a factor making them "particularly vulnerable" only if it substantially limits or excludes their ability to avoid, protest against, or report the offence, or is intended to do so. | The court applied Saunders to conclude the Victim's prior sleep did not render her particularly vulnerable here because she was woken before the offending and did resist and protest. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by reference to the statutory anonymity requirement and the scope of section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988. It reviewed the facts, sentencing material (pre-sentence reports, addendum and psychological reports) and the sentencing exercise performed by Judge Wright under the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline and the Sexual Offences Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline.
The court summarised the sentencing steps: (1) seriousness — it accepted the prosecution that there was coercion and the custodial threshold was passed so custody or a YRO with ISS were available; (2) aggravating features — taking advantage of the Victim when asleep, continuing despite protests, and alcohol; (3) mitigation — Offender's lack of previous convictions, youth, immaturity, vulnerability, remorse and positive engagement; (4) credit for guilty plea — maximum credit was given; and (5) overall review balancing youth and rehabilitation aims.
On the Solicitor General's submissions the court analysed the proposed category 2 harm factors. It held that the Victim's psychological harm, though substantial, did not meet the high threshold of "severe" in the context of rape. It further held the Victim was not "particularly vulnerable" by virtue of being away from home or having been asleep beforehand because she was woken before the offending and she resisted; Saunders was applied in that context. The court found no basis to re-categorise the offence as 2B or to disturb the judge's assessment that the youth-adjusted notional sentence equated to about two years (such that a suspended custody would have been possible but for youth restrictions).
The court noted the sentencing judge properly followed the relevant guidelines and that the sentence imposed was within the range reasonably available. It also took into account post-sentence supervisory report (Attorney Skelton) showing full compliance and meaningful engagement, which reinforced the view that a community-based disposal was appropriate and proportionate.
Holding and Implications
LEAVE REFUSED
Holding: The court refused the Solicitor General's application for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient; the YRO with ISS imposed by Judge Wright stands.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Offender's non-custodial sentence remains in force. The court signalled that the judge correctly applied the Children and Young People sentencing framework and did not establish a novel precedent beyond the application of existing authorities; no new general principle was announced.
Alert