Summary of Judgment — Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried and convicted at The City Court on multiple counts of sexual offending concerning prolonged sexual abuse of his younger sibling, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff, over a period of about 10 years beginning when the Plaintiff was about four or five years old. The indictment included counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act, multiple counts of rape and sexual assault (some occurring while the Appellant was under 18 and others when he was an adult), and a count of sexual activity with a family member to which the Appellant pleaded guilty when it was added immediately prior to trial. The Appellant was sentenced on 24 June 2025 with concurrent terms structured around count 7 (a multi-incident rape committed when the Appellant was an adult): an aggregate determinate sentence of 21 years was imposed on the lead count and an additional one-year licence period was erroneously imposed under the designation "offender of particular concern," producing a sentence described as 22 years in total. The Appellant sought permission to appeal his sentence. The Court of Appeal heard the matter and made an anonymity order concerning the Plaintiff.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an anonymity order should be made to protect identification of the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in structuring sentence around count 7 (an adult offence) rather than count 2 (an offence committed when the Appellant was a youth), and thereby produced an excessive overall sentence.
3. Whether the one-year additional licence period imposed as part of treating the Appellant as an "offender of particular concern" was lawful given schedule and age-based restrictions in the Sentencing Act 2020.
4. Whether the Appellant should be treated as a "dangerous offender" for the purpose of imposing an extended sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred by taking count 7 (an offence committed when the Appellant was an adult) as the lead for structuring the sentence instead of count 2 (the agreed lead, committed when the Appellant was 15), thereby overstating totality and failing to reflect the Appellant's age and immaturity at the commencement of offending.
• The overall starting point for totality was too high; although there was psychological harm, there was no violence and the Plaintiff had not required psychiatric treatment (argument directed to reduction of sentence severity).

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent suggested that the Appellant might fall within the statutory definition of a dangerous offender and that an extended sentence could be appropriate (the Court considered and rejected this course).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first concluded that an anonymity order was appropriate because of the familial relationship between the Appellant and the Plaintiff and the risk of jigsaw identification of the Plaintiff.

On sentencing, the court analysed: (a) the factual matrix showing prolonged, persistent abuse spanning the Appellant's youth and adult years, including multiple serious offences committed while the Appellant was an adult; (b) the sentencing judge's method of structuring the overall sentence by taking count 7 (adult rape, representing a campaign of rape) as the lead count to reflect totality; and (c) the judge's application of sentencing guidelines, including reductions on counts committed when the Appellant was under 18. The Court of Appeal found the judge's selection of count 7 as the lead count to be correct because significant and serious offending continued into the Appellant's adulthood and because the judge faithfully applied the guidelines and reflected the Appellant's youth where appropriate.

The court identified a legal error in the imposition of the additional one-year licence period under the "offender of particular concern" designation: count 7 is not listed in schedule 13 of the Sentencing Act 2020, so imposing that additional licence period on count 7 was unlawful; count 2, although listed, was committed when the Appellant was under 18 and section 278(2) precluded the sentence in respect of that offence. That error required correction on appeal.

The court addressed whether to impose an extended sentence as a dangerous offender. It concluded that section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 weighed against the Court taking that step on appeal and, on the substantive merits, agreed with the judge that an extended sentence was not warranted: the Appellant would be serving a lengthy determinate term, the pre-sentence report did not make extended detention necessary, and prospects for rehabilitation were factored in.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSITION: The Court granted permission to appeal in part and allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the Appellant's sentence as an "offender of particular concern" under count 7 (the additional one-year licence period). The court replaced that component with a determinate sentence of 21 years' imprisonment, with all other sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an overall sentence of 21 years' imprisonment.

Consequences: The unlawful one-year licence period was removed and the Appellant's total custodial sentence remains 21 years. An anonymity order protecting the Plaintiff was made. The decision did not purport to establish a new precedent beyond the application of existing statutory and guideline provisions; it corrected the sentencing error and affirmed the judge's overall approach to totality and guideline application.