RJL, R. v

Where a sentencing judge has correctly selected the applicable sentencing category and range, the judge may impose a sentence at the top of that range to reflect substantial aggravating features. Where sentences for associated offences are concurrent, the principal sentence may also properly reflect the totality of the offending. An appellate court will not interfere where that approach produces a sentence which is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

The applicant was convicted after trial of rape of a child under 13 and three sexual assaults on his step-granddaughter, who was aged between five and seven at the relevant times. The Recorder imposed an extended sentence of 18 years for the rape offence, comprising 17 years’ custody and one year’s extended licence, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

Following refusal by the single judge, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against the principal sentence. The issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

2. The Recorder was entitled to assess the rape offence as falling at the top of category 2 and at culpability A. The sustained sexual offending caused sufficient psychological harm. Grooming, abuse of trust and the applicant’s previous conviction for gross indecency with a child were appreciable aggravating features.

3. Having correctly identified the applicable category and range, the Recorder was entitled to select a custodial term at the top of that range. The sentence was based on a proper assessment of the seriousness of the rape offence and the aggravating features.

4. The principal sentence also properly reflected the totality of the offending. The sentences for the three sexual assaults were concurrent, so their seriousness could properly be reflected in the sentence for rape.

5. The court agreed with the single judge that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The extended sentence imposed under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 236A therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence after the single judge had refused leave.

• Trial court: On 7 July 2017, Mr Recorder J A MacAdam convicted the applicant and imposed an extended sentence of 18 years for rape of a child under 13, with concurrent sentences for three sexual assaults.