Summary of Court of Appeal Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court of Appeal (sitting at The City) considered renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence by two appellants convicted after a trial at Woolwich Crown Court before Judge Gumpert. The appellants (now aged 68 and 58) were convicted on 9 September 2024 of multiple historical sexual offences against the same complainant. Sentences were imposed on 6 December 2024: Appellant 1 received 14 years' imprisonment (principal count 4), with concurrent terms on other counts; Appellant 2 received 11 years' imprisonment. Both appellants sought renewed permission to appeal against those sentences after refusal by the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in quantifying (or failing to quantify) reductions for delay.
3. Whether the reductions made for health and other mitigation were insufficient.
4. Whether the judge erred in selecting the starting points for sentence (including alleged parity between the appellants' starting points).
5. Whether the appellants should have been designated "offenders of particular concern" under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the effect of any omission to do so.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments

• The judge failed to quantify the reduction in sentence attributable to delay.
• The 2-year reduction applied for mitigation (principally ill health) was insufficient.

Appellant 2's Arguments

• The judge erred in adopting the same (or equivalent) starting point for sentence as for Appellant 1.
• The reduction for mitigating factors should have been larger.
• The judge did not quantify the reduction in sentence attributable to delay.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 reporting restrictions applied and proceeded to review the renewed applications against sentence. It recognised that the offences, charged under the 1956 Act, should be sentenced by reference to the modern guidelines (applying R v H & Ors and R v Hyde-Gomes). The judge below had categorised harm as category 2 and culpability as category A, producing guideline starting points: 13 years for a single offence of rape of a child under 13, and a higher starting point where a multiple-incident count was the principal offence.

The Court analysed the specific grounds:

• On delay: Relying on R v Radcliffe, the Court held the sentencing judge was not obliged to quantify reductions for delay; further, delay did not warrant significant mitigation where the appellant had committed further offending during the intervening period.
• On ill health and other mitigation: The judge was entitled to assess the weight of poor health and to make a 2-year overall reduction; poor health in historic cases is commonly of limited mitigating value where offending remained undetected for many years.
• On starting points and totality: For Appellant 1 the Court observed that the principal count was a multiple-incident count and that the judge's 16-year starting point was within range but could arguably have been higher given multiple separate sexual offences; this observation supported rejection of the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. For Appellant 2 the judge's use of the guideline starting point of 13 years was appropriate.
• On designation as offenders of particular concern: The Court noted that both appellants should have been sentenced as offenders of particular concern under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which would have extended licence periods. The Court recorded surprise this was not raised at sentence and noted the omission rendered the imposed sentences, on their face, less onerous than they should have been; however, the Court was precluded from increasing sentences on appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence by both appellants were refused and dismissed. The single judge's refusal was upheld.

Implications:

• The original sentences remain in force: Appellant 1 — 14 years' imprisonment (with concurrent terms on other counts); Appellant 2 — 11 years' imprisonment.
• The Court noted an omission at sentence: neither appellant was designated an "offender of particular concern" under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which would have resulted in extended licence periods; the Court could not increase the sentences on appeal despite this omission.
• The Court made loss of time orders for renewal of the applications: 56 days for Appellant 1 and 28 days for Appellant 2, reflecting that the renewed applications were considered wholly without merit.
• No new legal precedent was established; the decision applied existing authorities and sentencing guidelines.

This summary is based solely on the information contained in the provided judgment transcript.