AM, R. v

In sentencing a prolonged campaign of child rape and sexual abuse, the court must assess the seriousness of each offence under the applicable guideline, then reflect the additional criminality of the campaign while observing totality. Severe psychological harm, the victim’s extreme vulnerability, grooming and abuse of trust may place rape of a child under 13 in Category 2A. Further aggravating features may justify a sentence above the guideline starting point.

Previous good character will not normally carry significant weight for such offending. Concurrent sentences may properly reflect overall criminality, but the total term must still reflect repeated rape and associated sexual assaults. A special custodial sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 236A permits consideration for release after half the custodial term, not automatic release.

The offender was convicted at Bradford Crown Court of eight sexual offences against his stepdaughter, committed between the ages of seven and 14. The offences included repeated rape, attempted rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault over about six years.

The recorder imposed concurrent sentences producing a special custodial sentence of 15 years’ custody and one year’s additional licence under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The central issue was whether the total custodial term adequately reflected the gravity of a sustained campaign involving at least 11 rapes and other sexual abuse.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The court granted leave, held that the total sentence was unduly lenient, quashed the sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3, and substituted concurrent terms producing 20 years’ custody and one year’s additional licence.

2. The rape offences committed when the victim was under 13 were correctly placed in Category 2A of the applicable sentencing guideline. Harm fell within Category 2 because the victim suffered severe psychological harm and was particularly vulnerable through her age and domestic circumstances. Culpability was at Level A because of grooming and abuse of trust.

3. The aggravating features substantially outweighed mitigation. Ejaculation and steps to prevent reporting aggravated the offending beyond the matters used to identify the category. The offender’s lack of previous convictions, work history, loss of business and likely deportation carried little weight. Even a single rape count warranted a sentence above the 13-year starting point.

4. The recorder was entitled to use concurrent sentences on the principal rape counts to reflect overall criminality. However, a total of 15 years did not adequately reflect at least 11 rapes, attempted rape, repeated penetrative assaults and repeated sexual assaults over six years. Applying totality, a custodial term of less than 20 years was inappropriate.

5. The court also corrected the recorder’s understanding of section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. After half the custodial term, the offender becomes eligible for Parole Board consideration, but has no entitlement to release. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentence unduly lenient and increased the total custodial term from 15 to 20 years.
• Crown Court at Bradford: Following jury convictions for eight sexual offences, the recorder imposed concurrent sentences resulting in 15 years’ custody and one year’s additional licence under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.