- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sala, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an Attorney General's Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, brought by the Solicitor General seeking leave to refer as unduly lenient the minimum term fixed for multiple life sentences imposed on the Defendant following trials in the Crown Court. Leave was granted.
The Defendant, aged 39 at the time of sentence, was convicted after two separate trials of multiple sexual and associated offences committed against four victims (referred to in the trial as Victim 1, Victim 2, Victim 3 and Victim 4) occurring between 2019 and 2022. On 23 May 2023 the Crown Court had imposed an extended determinate sentence in respect of the offences against Victim 4 (custody 20 years with an extended licence of five years). On 28 November 2025 the Crown Court (Judge Bowes) sentenced the Defendant for the remaining offences, imposing seven concurrent life sentences with a minimum term of 16 years and 137 days (and other concurrent determinate terms for assault occasioning actual bodily harm). The Solicitor General challenges only the notional determinate sentence (and resulting minimum term) underpinning the life sentences imposed on 28 November 2025.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the minimum term of 16 years and 137 days (derived from a notional determinate sentence of 30 years) imposed for the seven life sentences was unduly lenient.
- Whether, applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in R v AYO and related authorities, the notional determinate sentence underpinning the minimum term should have exceeded 30 years such that a higher minimum term was required.
Arguments of the Parties
Attorney General's Arguments
- Attorney Pattison submitted that the notional determinate sentence of 30 years used by the sentencing judge as the foundation for the minimum term was unduly lenient; the sole point in issue is that notional determinate figure.
Defendant's Arguments
- Attorney Akudolu KC endorsed the sentencing judge's overall approach, accepted the dangerousness finding and that life sentences were appropriate, and submitted the minimum term was proportionate despite the number and gravity of offences. She emphasised the complications caused by the prosecution conducting two trials and urged the high threshold the court applies in unduly lenient references.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v AYO [2022] EWCA Crim 1271; [2023] 1 Cr App R(S) 2024 | Guidance that total custodial term for multiple sexual offences will comparatively rarely exceed about 30 years after a trial; sentences greater than that are reserved for particularly serious offending. | The court applied AYO as the primary guide and concluded this case fell into the "comparatively rare" category warranting a notional determinate sentence in excess of 30 years. |
| Attorney General's Reference (R v JRM) [2021] EWCA Crim 524 | Example of exceptionally serious multiple sexual offending resulting in very high notional determinate sentences. | Considered as context for exceptional cases; the court held the present case was not at the extreme level exemplified by JRM. |
| Attorney General's Reference (R v Wilson) [2021] EWCA Crim 839 | Considered whether prior extreme cases set a new benchmark; Wilson rejected that approach and confined very high sentences to particularly serious cases. | The court relied on Wilson's limitation of the extreme cases as not setting a new general benchmark and applied that principle in assessing appropriate notional determinate sentence here. |
| McCann, Sinaga | Illustrative authorities of exceptionally serious multiple sexual offending where very long notional determinate sentences were derived. | The court found the present case serious but not at the same level as McCann, Sinaga; thus it did not adopt the very highest notional determinate figures used in those cases. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court accepted the sentencing judge had correctly applied sentencing guidelines, categorised individual offences and treated the Defendant as dangerous, and that the judge's method of calculating minimum terms (derive a notional determinate sentence, reduce by one third for early release, and deduct custody already served) was correct in principle. The Solicitor General challenged only the choice of a 30-year notional determinate sentence as the starting point.
The court analysed relevant authorities, principally R v AYO and decisions referenced in it (including JRM and Wilson), and concluded AYO provides adequate guidance that sentences exceeding a total custodial term of about 30 years are comparatively rare and reserved for particularly serious cases. Having reviewed the facts in detail — a course of conduct across four victims involving repeated, violent and degrading sexual offending, including group rape, extreme coercion, and sustained manipulation — the court determined this case fell within that comparatively rare, particularly serious category.
Applying AYO, the court concluded the appropriate notional determinate sentence for the seven offences carrying life imprisonment was 38 years. Reduced by one third for early release rules, that produced a minimum term of 25 years and four months for each life count (to run concurrently). The court quashed the earlier minimum term and substituted the higher minimum term, then reduced that period by 1,323 days to account for time on remand and time spent serving the earlier May 2023 sentence, resulting in the operative minimum terms recited in the order.
Holding and Implications
Outcome: The Attorney General's Reference was allowed in part. The court quashed the minimum terms imposed on the seven life-sentence counts and substituted minimum terms of 25 years and four months for each of those counts (to run concurrently). After deduction of 1,323 days spent on remand and serving the prior sentence, the minimum terms to be served are 21 years and 258 days.
Implications: All other sentences and orders imposed by the Crown Court remain unchanged and unaffected by this decision. The decision applies the guidance in R v AYO to conclude that this particular sequence of offending warranted a notional determinate sentence in excess of 30 years and a correspondingly higher minimum term for the life sentences.
Alert