Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted after trial of seven sexual offences committed when he was 14 against a six-year-old victim. The offences included three rapes of a child under 13, three sexual assaults, and penetrative sexual activity with a child. [1][2]
The Appellant received concurrent custodial sentences totalling four years and an indefinite restraining order prohibiting contact with the victim. [3][4]
The Appellant appealed against sentence with permission from the single judge. [5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the Children guideline and the principles governing sentencing adults for offences committed as children. [6][7]
- Whether custody was appropriate for an offender who was 14 at the time of the offences. [6][8][9]
- Whether the four-year sentence was manifestly excessive. [6][10]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. [6]
- The sentencing judge failed sufficiently to apply the Children guideline, including because the pre-sentence report could not address the Appellant's maturity at age 14. [11]
- The Appellant's conduct was allegedly connected with confusion about his sexuality, although the Court noted that this assertion was unsupported by expert evidence. [12]
- Psychological harm was said to be the only factor potentially justifying custody, and a non-custodial sentence was argued to be appropriate. [13][14]
- Alternatively, the four-year custodial sentence was said to be too long and manifestly excessive. [6][10]
- The Appellant relied on the comparison with RW, where a shorter sentence had been substituted for offences committed while the offender was a child. [15][16]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281 |
Sentencing must reflect reduced culpability for offending committed as a child; the Children guideline remains relevant regardless of the offender's age at sentence; the court should consider the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time and may consider subsequent evidence of harm and culpability. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] |
The Court held that the sentencing judge's approach was consistent with Ahmed, including his consideration of the victim's later-established psychological harm. [7][14] |
| R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596 |
The case is identified as an important authority alongside Ahmed on the applicable sentencing approach. |
The Court found nothing in the sentencing judge's approach that conflicted with ZA. [7] |
| RW |
The Court of Appeal had substituted 18 months' imprisonment for a six-year sentence imposed for sexual offences committed while the offender was a child. [16] |
The comparison was rejected because RW involved a guilty plea, a smaller age difference, and an earlier first rape committed at age 10. [15][24][25] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the sentencing judge conducted the required analysis. He considered the Children guideline, the guideline for child sexual offending, the adult offence guidelines, the Appellant's welfare, maturity, domestic circumstances, and the seriousness of the offending. [7][26][27][28]
The Court rejected the criticism concerning the pre-sentence report because there was no other available source addressing the Appellant's maturity when he was 14. [11]
The Court also rejected the unsupported submission that the offending resulted from confusion about sexual orientation. There was no expert psychological evidence addressing the Appellant's state of mind or linking the offending to his sexual orientation. [12]
Custody was justified by the course of offending, which involved three rapes and other serious sexual offences over several months, the substantial age disparity between the Appellant and the victim, coercion, exploitation and pressure, and severe psychological harm. The psychological harm was important but was not the sole justification for custody. [8]
The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the victim's long-term psychological harm as it was known at the time of sentence, rather than limiting consideration to what would have been apparent in 2006 or 2007. [14]
The Court accepted that custodial sentences should be particularly rare for offenders aged 14 or under, but held that the guideline did not prohibit custody where the circumstances made it necessary. [25][9]
As to length, the Court considered that an adult sentence would have been at or near the top of the applicable range, possibly higher, even after personal mitigation. The four-year sentence therefore represented a reduction of approximately two thirds or more, reflecting the Appellant's youth, immaturity, and difficult circumstances. It was not manifestly excessive. [29][30][31]
Holding and Implications
Appeal against sentence dismissed. The four-year concurrent custodial sentence and associated restraining order therefore remained in force. [4][32]
The decision confirms only the direct outcome of this appeal on the facts described; the opinion does not state that any new precedent was established. [32]