J R W, R v

A sentence for category 1A rape may properly exceed the ordinary guideline range where the offending is exceptionally severe, including a prolonged campaign of rape. The court must assess the overall criminality, identify aggravating and mitigating factors, and apply totality where concurrent sentences are imposed for associated offences.

A technical error in the structure of a sentence need not be corrected on appeal where correction would make no difference to the period liable to be served or to the applicable licence period.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Derby of ten historic sexual offences and two offences of cruelty to a child. The complainant was his daughter. The offending involved prolonged sexual abuse, rape and violence over about 15 years.

On 4 August 2017, the judge imposed concurrent terms on the individual counts and a total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with the single judge’s leave. The central issue was whether that total sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to make the sentences for rape reflect the appellant’s overall criminality and to impose concurrent sentences for the other offences. The rape offences fell within category 1A of the sentencing guidelines. Although the ordinary starting point and range were lower, the guidelines contemplated sentences of 20 years or more for offending of exceptional severity, such as a campaign of rape.

3. This was such a case. The judge was entitled to treat the prolonged campaign of rape and violence by a father against his vulnerable daughter as exceptionally serious. The complainant’s vulnerability, the abuse in her home, her need to leave home to escape it, and the threats and exploitation used to prevent disclosure were material aggravating features.

4. The judge had also fully considered the appellant’s age, medical conditions and previous good character. He recognised that imprisonment would be difficult for the appellant. He was entitled to give limited weight to good character in view of the extreme seriousness of the offending. The judge expressly applied totality and made no further upward adjustment for the lesser offences.

5. The court noted an error affecting counts 1 and 2. Under section 236 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the correct structure was an appropriate custodial term followed by a one-year licence period, within the five-year maximum. It was unnecessary to alter those sentences because the error did not affect the period the appellant was liable to serve and he would in any event be subject to licence for up to 11 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 510, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Derby: Following conviction before Judge Cooke and a jury, sentenced the appellant on 4 August 2017 for historic sexual offences and offences of cruelty to a child.