Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal from a retrial in the Crown Court where the Appellant was convicted on 19 June 2025 of kidnapping (count 1), attempted rape (count 2) and assault by penetration (count 4). On 29 August 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 23 years (18 years custody with a five‑year extended licence) on each count, to run concurrently. The Appellant, aged late 60s at sentencing and with significant health issues, obtained leave to appeal against sentence.
Count 4 (assault by penetration) concerned C1. On 19 August 2022 C1, intoxicated after socialising in The City, accepted a lift from the Appellant, was left in a park, approached again by the Appellant who digitally penetrated her, dragged and kicked her; she escaped and sent messages seeking help.
Counts 1 and 2 concerned C2. On the night of 17–18 November 2022 C2, intoxicated and affected by cocaine, accepted a lift from the Appellant who claimed to be an Uber driver. C2 fell in and out of consciousness in the back seat; the Appellant put on latex gloves, touched her breasts, later pulled down her lower clothing at her home address and was about to rape her before she fought him off. The Appellant was arrested; police found gloves, a Viagra tablet on him, and baby oil, condoms, masks, latex gloves and a business card with a ride‑hailing logo in his car. C2 later died; her mother provided a victim impact statement describing severe and lasting psychological harm.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the overall sentence (extended sentence of 23 years: 18 years custody plus five years extended licence) was manifestly excessive having regard to the sentencing guidelines for rape and assault by penetration and the principle of totality.
- Whether the judge erred in imposing an extended sentence (rather than a determinate sentence) given the Appellant's age and ill‑health and the reduced likelihood of reoffending on release.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (summarised)
- The judge treated the attempted rape (count 2) as approaching category 1 harm without giving counsel an opportunity to address that re‑characterisation, producing unfairness and incorrect classification.
- The judge overstated the degree of planning; the items found were opportunistic rather than indicative of significant planning, so culpability should not have been elevated to category A.
- The attempted nature of count 2 required a reduction in sentence in accordance with Attorney General's Reference (R v Zaheer) [2018] EWCA Crim 1708.
- The judge failed to give adequate credit for personal mitigation—advanced age and serious medical comorbidities—which would reduce future risk and warranted a determinate rather than extended sentence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney General's Reference (R v Zaheer) [2018] EWCA Crim 1708 |
Principle that sentences for attempted offences will ordinarily be less than sentences for the substantive offence and the reduction depends on stage of attempt and reason for non‑completion. |
The court applied the principle and concluded the attempt here warranted only a minimal reduction because the Appellant had gone far towards completing the rape and the harm suffered by C2 was severe. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first noted the anonymity protections under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and confirmed they were not lifted.
On categorisation and culpability the court accepted that:
- Count 2 (attempted rape of C2) was properly in category 2 for harm but the judge was entitled to find the psychological impact was extreme and approached category 1; culpability was category A due to significant planning (items found in the car including gloves, condoms, baby oil and a ride‑hailing card).
- Count 4 (assault by penetration of C1) was category 2 for harm; C1's intoxication and the abduction/violence supported an uplift; culpability was category A given evidence the Appellant lay in wait and used his car to target victims.
The court rejected the Appellant's contention that the planning was merely opportunistic, relying on the combination of items found and the business card as evidence of intention and planning. Applying the sentencing guidelines (starting points and ranges for category 2A offences), the court accepted upward adjustments for multiple aggravating features (timing, location, targeting of vulnerable victims, disposal attempt of a mobile phone) and accepted mitigation for lack of relevant convictions and the Appellant's age and health, which the judge had stated she took into account.
On the attempted offence reduction, the court applied R v Zaheer and concluded the failure to complete the rape produced only a minimal reduction in seriousness because the Appellant had taken substantial steps, intended to rape C2, had a Viagra tablet and had pulled down her clothing; the psychological harm was severe.
On totality the court analysed the custodial components: counts 1 and 2 together would justify 12–13 years each, count 4 eight years; consecutive implementation would yield 20–21 years, so an 18‑year cumulative custodial term reflected a modest reduction for totality and was not manifestly excessive despite the Appellant's age and health.
On dangerousness and the extended sentence the court accepted the pre‑sentence assessments that the Appellant posed a very high risk of serious harm: his pattern of driving at night seeking intoxicated young women, the deliberate targeting, failure to accept responsibility, and indicia of planning meant an extended sentence was within the proper exercise of judicial discretion despite the Appellant's age and infirmity.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Direct effect: The Appellant's sentence of an extended sentence totalling 23 years (18 years custody with a five‑year extended licence) stands. The court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the judge did not err in imposing an extended sentence. The opinion does not purport to establish new authority beyond its application of established guideline principles.