Sienkiewicz, R v

Where serious sexual offences involve planned repeat offending, separate vulnerable victims and severe, lasting psychological harm, the overall seriousness may justify a sentencing starting point above the ordinary range for the applicable guideline category. The reference to a campaign of rape as an example of cases attracting sentences of 20 years or more does not prevent the court from assessing the combined gravity of other exceptionally serious offending.

On an appeal against sentence, long custodial terms imposed on young offenders will stand where the sentencing judge has properly reflected age, culpability, guilty pleas and the totality of the offending, and the resulting sentences are not manifestly excessive.

Two cousins, aged 16 and 17 when offending, committed rapes of two sex workers during two planned visits to a red-light district. They initially denied the allegations and pleaded guilty shortly before trial.

At Leeds Crown Court, Daniel received concurrent terms of 11 years and three months’ detention under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91. Lukasz received concurrent terms of 14 years’ detention in a young offender institution. Both appealed, contending that the adult starting points, set above the category 1A range in the sexual-offences guideline, made the sentences manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge’s approach and conclusions disclosed no error, and that neither sentence was manifestly excessive.

2. The offences properly fell within harm category 1. Both victims suffered severe psychological harm and were particularly vulnerable because of their circumstances as sex workers. The appellants acted together, planned the offending, deliberately selected remote locations and committed offences against two different victims on separate occasions.

3. The guideline range for category 1A did not impose a ceiling on the overall starting point. The judge was entitled to treat the repeat, planned targeting of vulnerable victims as adding substantially to the total gravity. Although consecutive sentences were possible in principle, concurrent sentences were imposed to reflect the overall seriousness.

4. The judge properly differentiated the appellants’ culpability by selecting a lower adult starting point for Daniel than for Lukasz, who was the dominant participant. He then allowed reductions reflecting their respective ages and gave credit for their late guilty pleas. The resulting terms were severe for offenders of their ages, but the appellants knew what they were doing and had caused severe and lasting harm.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against sentence in [2016] EWCA Crim 2117.
• Crown Court at Leeds: on 15 June 2016 imposed concurrent sentences for rape, including detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 on Daniel.