Westlake, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a Reference by the Appellant under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 challenging the sentence imposed on the Defendant after convictions for multiple sexual offences. The Defendant, born September 2004, was convicted on two separate indictments in The City Crown Court following jury trials. On 16 May 2025 (indictment 1) the Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child, two counts of breach of a sexual risk order and one count of failure to comply with notification requirements. On 13 October 2025 (indictment 2) the Defendant was convicted of three counts of assault by penetration, two counts of rape and four counts of sexual activity with a child. On 28 November 2025 (and at a slip rule hearing on 22 January 2026) the Defendant, then aged 21 at sentence, was given an aggregate determinate term of nine years' imprisonment made up of consecutive and concurrent sentences as set out in the trial judge's order. There were ancillary notification and barring orders and a victim surcharge. The offending spanned 26 January 2021 to 14 November 2024 and involved five victims, anonymised in the judgment as V1–V5, each aged 13–14 at the time of the contact offences; two victims were raped and one pregnancy resulted in termination. The Defendant had no previous convictions recorded.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the determinate total custodial sentence of nine years was unduly lenient and insufficiently reflective of the overall gravity of the offending across five separate victims, having regard to the sentencing principles applicable to offences committed as a child.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in not imposing an extended sentence (with an extended licence period) given the assessed dangerousness and persistence of offending despite warnings, bail and a Sexual Risk Order.
3. Whether the judge misapplied the principle of totality or otherwise erred in structuring concurrent and consecutive sentences so as to understate the overall culpability.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney White)

• The judge failed properly to structure sentences to reflect the cumulative gravity of offending against five separate victims and misapplied totality.
• The 50% reduction from equivalent adult sentences (tapering for age) was excessive, particularly given the Defendant was nearly 18 for the most serious offence and continued offending into adulthood in breach of a Sexual Risk Order.
• The judge erred in declining to impose an extended sentence; a determinate sentence alone did not provide sufficient protection given persistent offending, lack of remorse and ongoing risk.

Defendant's Arguments (Attorney Churcher)

• The sentencing judge's approach, including recognition of dangerousness but declining an extended sentence, fell within the reasonable discretion of the court given the lengthy determinate sentence imposed.
• The judge had the opportunity to observe the Defendant at trial and properly considered reports and mitigation (age at offending, difficult upbringing, diagnoses including ASD and ADHD) in reaching a balanced sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal analysed (i) the categorisation and individual sentencing decisions made by the sentencing judge, and (ii) whether the aggregate determinate sentence and the choice not to impose an extended sentence were reasonable.

The court accepted the judge's categorizations of the offences under the adult guideline and his application of the child-specific guidance to arrive at reduced individual sentences (between one-half and two-thirds of the equivalent adult sentence). The panel observed that the judge's individual sentences for the two rapes were themselves proper and not contested.

However, the court could not discern any adjustment in the judge's oral reasoning to reflect the cumulative effect of the other offending against separate victims when the judge ordered concurrency for the remaining counts; the judge did not explain how totality had been applied to reflect the full catalogue of offences.

The court applied the guidance in R v Ahmed to consider (a) that most serious offending was committed when the Defendant was 16–17, (b) that later offending (including breaches of a Sexual Risk Order and offending while on bail) aggravated the overall culpability, and (c) that tapering for age must be considered but can be offset by subsequent conduct.

Given: (1) the proximity of the most serious rape to the Defendant's transition to adulthood and to a recent arrest/interview, (2) the later breach of protective orders and offending at age 20, (3) the judge's finding of dangerousness, and (4) the Defendant's continued denial of responsibility and apparent lack of amenability to rehabilitation (including concerns linked to ASD), the court concluded that a determinate sentence alone did not offer sufficient public protection.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted the Reference and concluded that the determinate sentence of nine years was unduly lenient.

Orders made:

• The sentence on count 9 (indictment 2) was quashed and replaced with an extended determinate sentence of 16 years, comprising an 11-year custodial term with a five-year extended licence.
• The sentence on count 3 (indictment 2) remains at three-and-a-half years but will run concurrently (no longer consecutively) with the replacement sentence.
• All other sentences and ancillary orders on both indictments remain unchanged.

Implications: The Defendant's overall punitive and supervisory period is increased by the imposition of an extended sentence with a significant extended licence period to provide further public protection. The judgment applies and illustrates the application of R v Ahmed principles to cases where substantial offending occurred when the offender was a child but subsequent conduct and risk justify a more severe adult sentence. The opinion addresses the facts of this case and does not articulate a novel legal precedent beyond the application of existing authorities.