Hamed, R. v

For a single rape of a child under 16, the applicable sentencing guidance gave a starting point of about eight years’ imprisonment and a post-trial range of six to 11 years. The overall sentence must nevertheless reflect the full course and gravity of the offending.

In assessing whether a total sentence is manifestly excessive, the court may give substantial weight to the victim’s vulnerability, prolonged sexual exploitation, grooming, persistence, violence and other connected sexual offences. Consensual unlawful activity within the relationship does not prevent a severe sentence for rape and associated offending.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against sentences imposed at Sheffield Crown Court following his conviction for six sexual offences against a 15-year-old girl in local-authority care.

He received concurrent sentences totalling ten years’ imprisonment for attempted rape, anal rape and sexual activity with a child. He was also made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order and disqualified from working with children.

The appeal challenged the total sentence as manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly reflected the seriousness of a prolonged and exploitative course of offending against a vulnerable child.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted the Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance issued in April 2007 concerning the Sexual Offences Act 2003. For a single rape of a child under 16, the starting point was about eight years’ imprisonment, with a likely post-trial range of six to 11 years.

3. The guidance did not require the sentence to be assessed by reference to the rape count in isolation. The sentencing judge, having presided over the trial, was best placed to assess the character and seriousness of the appellant’s overall offending. His assessment could not be criticised.

4. The offending was prolonged and directed at a girl whom the appellant knew to be naïve, immature and vulnerable. It involved sexual exploitation over several months, grooming, persistence and violence. The anal rape occurred against the background of related consensual but unlawful activity, but the appellant had previously attempted to rape the complainant and continued to exploit her.

5. There was an apparent disparity between the two-year sentences for two counts and the seven-year sentences for two other counts. That did not justify intervention because the concurrent total of ten years was not manifestly excessive. The court therefore declined to alter any individual sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2008] EWCA Crim 34.

• Sheffield Crown Court: On 23 August 2007, following conviction after trial, the appellant received concurrent sentences totalling ten years’ imprisonment for sexual offences against a child.