JJR, R v

When sentencing a person aged 15 to 17 for a grave sexual offence, the court must apply the youth sentencing principles. Emotional and developmental age and maturity may be as important as chronological age. A sentence broadly between one half and two thirds of the relevant adult sentence may be appropriate, subject to all the circumstances and proper credit for a guilty plea.

For rape involving forced entry into the victim’s home, gratuitous violence, significant planning and burglary, the adult rape guideline may place the offence in category 1A. An extended licence period must nevertheless provide sufficient protection for the public where the offence, offending history and professional risk assessments demonstrate a serious continuing risk.

The Solicitor General referred the offender’s sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender, aged 17, had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle to rape contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He entered the victim’s flat at night and raped her after repeatedly strangling her unconscious with a cable. He also assaulted her. The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence comprising five years and six months’ youth detention and a two-year extended licence period.

The reference challenged both the custodial term and the adequacy of the extension period. The central issues were whether the custodial term was unduly lenient and whether a two-year extended licence adequately protected the public.

1. Leave was granted and the sentence was varied. The court held that the five-year extended licence period, but not the custodial term, was required. It quashed the two-year extension period and substituted five years. The five years and six months’ youth detention remained unchanged.

2. The rape was correctly categorised under the definitive rape guideline as category 1A. It involved category 1 harm because there was forced entry into the victim’s home and gratuitous violence beyond that inherent in rape. It involved category A culpability because of significant planning and its commission during a burglary. The adult starting point was therefore 15 years’ imprisonment, with a range of 12 to 19 years.

3. The offender was under 18 when he offended, first appeared in the Crown Court and was sentenced. The judge was therefore required to apply the principles governing children and young people, including the youth justice system’s principal aim of preventing offending and the welfare of the young person. Under the relevant guideline, developmental and emotional maturity may be at least as important as chronological age, and a sentence broadly between one half and two thirds of the adult sentence may be appropriate for offenders aged 15 to 17.

4. The sentencing judge’s starting point, reduction for age and maturity, and 30 per cent guilty-plea reduction allowed room for different legitimate sentencing structures. Although a longer custodial term might have been imposed, the resulting five years and six months was not so lenient as to require appellate intervention. Credit for plea was particularly a matter for the sentencing judge, who was sentencing a young person.

5. The extension period was unduly lenient. The gravity of the rape, its escalation from the offender’s previous offending, and the pre-sentence and psychiatric assessments required materially greater protection for the public. The post-release measures identified by the judge did not make a two-year extension sufficient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The court retained the custodial term but substituted a five-year extended licence period.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: On 26 September 2017, the offender received an extended sentence under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising five years and six months’ youth detention and a two-year extended licence period.