Summary of Court of Appeal Criminal Division Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at The City following committal from the Youth Court. The Appellant (aged 16 at the time of the offences and 18 at trial) was convicted after a Youth Court determination and committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to sections 16 and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Youth Court had determined that committal for sentence was appropriate for offences of rape and digital penetration and for an offence of intentional strangulation. The Crown Court Judge (Judge Herbert) imposed an overall custodial term of 45 months' detention in a young offender institution for the rape (with concurrent sentences of 24 months and 12 months for the digital penetration and strangulation respectively). The appeal against that sentence was heard with leave granted by the Single Judge in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on 19 May 2026 before Judges Stuart‑Smith, Andrew Baker and Judge Richardson (sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 45 months' detention was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge took too high a starting point and failed to make sufficient adjustment in accordance with the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline.
3. Whether it was appropriate for the judge to alter the sentence after initially indicating a different term (the procedural question arising from an initial indication of 40 months followed by a final term of 45 months).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge adopted too high a starting point for adult sentencing and did not sufficiently apply the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline reductions for the offender's age.
• The judge failed properly to reflect mitigation and reduced sentence inadequately for youth.
• The judge initially indicated a final sentence of 40 months but later imposed 45 months after representations from the prosecution; the defence submitted the sentence should remain as originally pronounced (40 months).
• Primary submission on aggravating features: the findings as to manipulation and vulnerability should not have been treated as aggravating factors at all.

Prosecution's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's specific submissions beyond indicating that representations were made after the judge's initial indication of 40 months which led to the final sentence as pronounced.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted statutory reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and that no waiver had been made. The factual findings by the trial process were set out: consensual activity that did not include vaginal penetration earlier in the evening; later non-consensual strangulation, digital penetration and penile penetration (rape) at the complainant's home.

The Court summarised the correct sentencing approach for juveniles by reference to R v Ghafoor: the proper starting point is the sentence the offender would likely have received at the date of the offences, and increased severity requires good reason. The Crown Court judge had derived an adult custodial term of 90 months based on treating the rape as category 3B with aggravating features and the need to reflect two other offences; she then reduced that term by around 50% to reflect the offender's youth, indicating a final sentence initially as 40 months but ultimately imposing 45 months after further representations.

The Court of Appeal analysed the aggravating and mitigating features: location (complainant's bedroom), persistence, the precursor strangulation, findings of manipulative behaviour and exploitation of complainant's vulnerabilities, the offender's previous good character and positive references, and the complainant's significant victim impact. The court accepted that the findings about manipulation and exploitation, while not amounting to a finding of particular vulnerability or specific targeting that would elevate category, nonetheless made the offending more serious and justified upward adjustments.

The court recalculated conceptually: an adult sentence of around 7 years before mitigation, reduced for personal mitigation to about 6 years (72–75 months), and then an indicative youth reduction (around 40%) pointing to a sentence in the low‑to‑mid 40s in months. On that analysis the 45‑month term was not manifestly excessive and reflected what would likely have been imposed had the offender been sentenced at 16 years 8 months.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: the sentence of 45 months' detention in a young offender institution remains in force. The Court concluded the sentence was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and that the approach required by R v Ghafoor was applied. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying existing principles to the facts; no broader novel legal rule was announced.