Storie, R v

In sentencing for repeated sexual offences against children, the court must impose a total sentence reflecting the overall criminality, including multiple victims, abuse of trust, grooming and psychological pressure. Concurrent sentences on the most serious counts may properly achieve that result.

A campaign of rape may justify a sentence of 20 years or more, but repeated rapes do not automatically amount to such a campaign. The sentencing court must distinguish the exceptional offending contemplated by that description from repeated offending which, although grave, calls for a lower determinate sentence.

The appellant was convicted at Caernarfon Crown Court of 14 sexual offences against two boys. The offences included rape, sexual assault and causing a child to engage in sexual activity without consent. They were committed over a prolonged period by a family friend who had assumed a quasi-parental role.

The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences, with 21 years’ imprisonment on the two most serious counts. The appellant appealed, contending that the total term was manifestly excessive and that the offending was not a campaign of rape within the sentencing guidance.

The central issue was whether the 21-year concurrent terms properly reflected the gravity and overall criminality of the repeated offending.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the concurrent 21-year sentences imposed on counts 2 and 12 and substituted concurrent terms of 18 years’ imprisonment. The remaining concurrent sentences were undisturbed.

2. The judge was entitled to sentence by reference to the most serious rape counts and to use concurrent sentences to reflect the overall criminality. That criminality included prolonged abuse of two young victims, the appellant’s abuse of a relationship of trust, grooming, and insidious psychological pressure. A consecutive-sentence structure for the two victims would also have been open to the judge.

3. The sentencing guidance recognises that offences of sufficient severity, including a campaign of rape, may justify terms of 20 years or more. The present offending was very serious and required a long determinate sentence. It was not, however, the exceptional type of campaign of rape contemplated by that guidance. Repeated rape must be distinguished from a campaign of rape for this purpose.

4. The trial judge had approached sentencing carefully and had the advantage of having conducted the trial. Nevertheless, the 21-year terms exceeded the proper level by a margin requiring appellate intervention. Concurrent terms of 18 years properly reflected the totality of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting concurrent 18-year terms for the concurrent 21-year terms: [2018] EWCA Crim 501.
• Crown Court at Caernarfon: On 7 April 2017, the appellant was convicted of 14 sexual offences. On 27 April 2017, he received concurrent sentences with an overall term of 21 years’ imprisonment.