Teklu, R. v

Whether planning is significant for sentencing purposes is a contextual assessment. A sexual assault may involve a significant degree of planning although it requires no implements, tools or sophisticated preparation. Lying in wait at night in a location chosen to target lone women returning home was capable of establishing that feature.

A victim may be particularly vulnerable because she is alone, late at night and deliberately targeted in those circumstances. The offender need not know of an additional personal characteristic. A sentencing judge may place an offence at the top of the applicable category where the attack is sustained, persistent and frightening, provided that good character is also taken into account.

The appellant was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received four years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the offence did not involve a significant degree of planning and should not have been placed in category 2A of the sentencing guideline. He also contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient allowance had been made for his previous good character.

The central issues were whether the judge was entitled to find significant planning and particular vulnerability, and whether the resulting four-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was open to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the offence as category 2A. Whether planning is significant depends on the context of the particular offence. Sexual assault can be committed without implements, tools or sophisticated preparation. The appellant had nevertheless lain in wait late at night in a place suited to targeting lone young women returning home, pursued the complainant and manoeuvred her towards a more secluded area. That conduct was capable of amounting to significant planning.

3. The complainant was particularly vulnerable. She was alone late at night and was targeted because she was alone. The appellant did not need to know of a separate personal characteristic that made her vulnerable.

4. The judge was also entitled to regard the timing and location, the sustained and persistent nature of the attack, and the complainant’s fear as aggravating features placing the offence at the top of the category. The court rejected the submission that the judge had ignored the appellant’s good character. The judge had expressly recognised it, while being entitled to regard the appellant’s trial account as demonstrating a lack of remorse.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal: [2017] EWCA Crim 1477.

• Crown Court at Cardiff: on 17 March 2017, convicted the appellant of sexual assault and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.