Khalaf, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in the Magistrates' Court at The City (Youth Court) and, on 7 May 2025, was convicted of rape (section 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003), disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress (section 33(1) and (9), Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015), sexual assault (section 3, Sexual Offences Act 2003) and possession of indecent photographs of a child (section 160(1), (2A) and (3), Criminal Justice Act 1988). He was committed to the Crown Court at The City for sentence under section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 6 June 2025 Judge Adams sentenced the Appellant (then aged 18) to four years and six months' detention in a young offender institution for the rape, concurrent terms of six months' detention for the other sexual offences, no separate penalty for possession of indecent photographs, and imposed a ten year restraining order. The Appellant, who was aged 15 at the time of the offending, appeals against sentence with leave of the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied Step 3 of the "Sexual Offences - Sentencing Children and Young People" guideline when fixing the starting point for sentence.
2. Whether the judge applied an appropriate reduction to the adult-equivalent sentence to reflect the Appellant's age and personal mitigation (including immaturity and background) so that the resulting sentence was not manifestly excessive.
3. Whether the final sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and therefore should be varied on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by Attorney Horton)

• The judge failed to apply Step 3 of the Sentencing Children and Young People guideline when determining his starting point, resulting in a starting point that was too high.
• The judge did not apply a sufficient reduction from the adult sentence to reflect the Appellant's youth (he was 15 at the time of offending), immaturity, unstable background and vulnerability.
• The judge should have given greater weight to the Appellant's successful completion of an Intensive Youth Rehabilitation Order between the offending and sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing exercise under the "Sexual Offences - Sentencing Children and Young People" guideline, which sets out Steps 1–5 for sentencers dealing with children and young people. The sentencing judge (Judge Adams) proceeded as follows:

• Step 1: Assessed seriousness — found penetrative activity involving coercion and pressure, requiring consideration of custody.
• Step 2: Identified aggravating and mitigating factors — identified blackmail/pressure as an aggravating feature and noted absence of previous convictions at the time as mitigation.
• Step 3: Considered personal mitigation — took account of the Appellant's maturity at age 15, difficult background, lack of insight and risk factors described in the pre-sentence report (PSR), and concluded a custodial sentence was necessary.
• The judge consulted the adult rape guideline as a starting point, placing the adult equivalent in Harm Category 2, Culpability B, producing an adult starting point of eight years (range 7–9). Taking account of the additional offences, the judge treated the adult-equivalent sentence as approximately nine years.
• Applying the Overarching Principles guideline, the judge applied a reduction of one half (paragraph 6.46 guidance that a young offender aged 15–17 may merit a sentence broadly within one-half to two-thirds of the adult sentence), giving four years and six months as the appropriate youth sentence.

The Court of Appeal analysed the grounds of appeal and the judge's reasoning. It concluded that the judge did in fact apply Step 3 and gave reasons why a custodial sentence was required. The appellate court found no improper uplift of the adult figure beyond taking account of the additional offences and accepted the judge's assessment that a nine‑year adult-equivalent figure was justified. The court held that the 50% reduction applied by the judge complied with paragraph 6.46 and sufficiently reflected the Appellant's youth, immaturity and background, while noting that successful completion of the later Intensive YRO did not address the index sexual offending or the Appellant's lack of insight regarding that offending. The court emphasised that the guideline reduction range (one-third to one-half reduction producing a sentence that is one-half to two-thirds of the adult figure) was not a two‑thirds reduction in the opposite sense and that the judge's approach was not mechanistic but substantive.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: the sentence imposed by Judge Adams is affirmed — four years and six months' detention in a young offender institution for rape, concurrent six month terms for the other sexual offences, no separate penalty for possession of indecent photographs, and a ten year restraining order. The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying the existing sentencing guidelines to the facts of this case.