- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ZHX, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted on 28 November 2025 of a single count of rape after a trial at Lewes Crown Court before Judge Mooney, and on 30 January 2026 he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment with 32 days to count towards sentence. [Para 27][Para 28] He appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. [Para 29] The offence involved the Appellant's former wife and took place in a service station public toilet between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1995; a witness heard what was happening and saw the Appellant raping the Complainant from behind. [Para 31] The Appellant's defence was that the intercourse was consensual, but the jury rejected that case. [Para 32]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the Appellant's personal mitigation, including his profound deafness and other health and background factors, when imposing a 4-year sentence. [Para 41][Para 43][Para 49]
- Whether the sentence should have been reduced further to reflect that the Appellant would be released only at the two-thirds point, rather than after serving half the term. [Para 37][Para 41][Para 55]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Counsel argued that the Appellant's deafness and related circumstances were exceptional and justified a further reduction in sentence. [Para 41][Para 49]
- Counsel submitted that the Court should take account of the two-thirds release point and reduce the sentence below 4 years so the Appellant might be eligible for release after serving only half. [Para 41][Para 37]
- Counsel relied on R v Patel [2021] EWCA 231 and R v Purdy [2009] EWCA Crim 2667. [Para 42]
- Counsel also said the judge had not given enough reduction to reflect delay, limited education and communication difficulties, lack of prior offending, Alzheimer's disease, complex learning difficulties, and profound deafness. [Para 43][Para 45][Para 46][Para 49]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Patel [2021] EWCA 231 | Cited by the Appellant in support of the submission that exceptional circumstances could justify some account being taken of release provisions. [Para 42] | The Court treated the case as part of authority showing that early release is generally a matter for the executive, not the courts, and held that this case was not exceptional enough to justify reducing the sentence below 4 years. [Para 55] |
| R v Purdy [2009] EWCA Crim 2667 | Cited by the Appellant for the same general proposition about release timing and exceptional cases. [Para 42] | The Court relied on it with Patel to reject the argument that the sentence should be adjusted so that release would occur at the halfway point. [Para 55] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that no pre-sentence report was before it and that it did not consider one necessary. [Para 52] It also had a prison report indicating that the Appellant was doing well in custody. [Para 53] The Court accepted that the Appellant's deafness would make prison harder, but held that the sentencing judge had already allowed for that by deducting one year from the notional sentence, which adequately reflected that feature. [Para 54] The Court further held that, although case law might leave open an exceptional case where release provisions could be considered, release dates are generally not taken into account because early release is for the executive, not the courts, and this was not such an exceptional case. [Para 55] It therefore agreed that deafness was properly treated as mitigation rather than as an exceptional feature, and that the one-year reduction was appropriate. [Para 56][Para 58]
As to the remaining mitigation, the Court held that the judge had taken the other personal factors into account and reasonably found that they broadly balanced the aggravating factors. [Para 59] The Court described the rape as a serious offence warranting a substantial sentence and was not persuaded that the term imposed was manifestly excessive. [Para 60]
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed. [Para 60] The 4-year sentence therefore remained in force, and the Court's only practical clarification was that the Appellant would be required to serve two-thirds of the sentence before release eligibility, not one-half. [Para 37][Para 60]
Alert