Igal, R. v

On an appeal against sentence, the ultimate question is whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive. Errors alleged in individual steps of guideline categorisation matter only if they affect that question.

Particular vulnerability may place an offence in a higher harm category where the child’s circumstances create vulnerability beyond that inherent in the victim’s age. Multiple offences do not by themselves make an individual offence a sustained incident. Significant planning may establish higher culpability. When sentencing a young offender, the court must consider maturity as well as chronological age, including the offender’s relative proximity in age to a child victim. The appropriate reduction from an adult sentence depends on all the offending reflected in the sentence.

The appellant was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of two counts of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences were committed when he was 16 and the complainant was 10. He received concurrent sentences of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge classified the offending as category 2 harm and category A culpability under the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline for sexual offences. The appellant appealed, contending that those classifications were wrong and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the reduction from the notional adult sentence properly reflected his youth at the time of the offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to find category 2 harm because the complainant was particularly vulnerable. Her vulnerability went beyond that inherent in being under 13. She was only 10, largely isolated, knew few people on the estate, and was not adequately protected within her family circumstances. The appellant quickly realised that there would be no effective constraint on persuading her to engage in sexual activity.

3. The Court disagreed with the additional characterisation of the offences as a sustained incident. The individual offences were not shown to have been particularly protracted or prolonged. The fact that more than one offence had been committed was a distinct matter. That error did not undermine the category 2 classification, which was independently justified by particular vulnerability.

4. The judge was also entitled to find a significant degree of planning and therefore higher culpability. The evidence showed that the appellant recognised the complainant’s responsiveness, took her to a secluded place, and persuaded her on more than one occasion to engage in oral sex. The finding of grooming added nothing distinct to the planning finding.

5. The notional adult sentence of 12 years was within the relevant guideline ranges and reflected both the introduction of other young men to the complainant and the multiple offences. In sentencing a young offender, the court must consider maturity as well as age. It must also recognise that an offender close in age to a child victim is materially different from an adult offender. The reduction to eight years, before credit for prior detention, was nevertheless within the applicable former guidance. A greater reduction might have been appropriate for one offence, but the concurrent sentences reflected more than one offence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against total sentence.
• Crown Court at Woolwich On 4 November 2016, convicted the appellant of two offences of rape of a child under 13. On 16 December 2016, imposed concurrent sentences of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.