Latimer, R v

For multiple serious offences, a sentencing judge may use a lead offence and increase its sentence to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending. The sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate and be justified by the applicable guideline range. Rape offending involving degradation, prolonged detention, breach of trust and previous violence may properly fall within category 1 harm and category A culpability. However, even very serious multiple rape offending does not justify a sentence above the category 1A range unless its severity warrants that departure. An appellate court may reduce a custodial term that is manifestly excessive while leaving an extended-sentence finding and concurrent sentences intact.

The appellant was convicted of offences committed against his 17-year-old partner during an abusive relationship, including three rapes, assaults and criminal damage. He also pleaded guilty to further assaults, actual bodily harm and criminal damage.

At Newcastle-upon-Tyne Crown Court, the judge imposed an extended sentence of 25 years for the anal rape charged in count 8. It comprised 21 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The judge treated that offence as the lead offence and increased its sentence to reflect the overall criminality.

The appellant appealed only the custodial element of that sentence. He did not challenge the finding that he was dangerous or that an extended sentence was required. The central issue was whether 21 years’ custody was manifestly excessive under the rape sentencing guideline.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court quashed the 25-year extended sentence on count 8 and substituted an extended sentence of 22 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The concurrent sentences on the remaining counts were unchanged.

2. The judge was entitled to select the anal rape as the lead offence. She could increase the sentence for that offence to reflect the other offences and the overall seriousness of the appellant’s conduct.

3. The judge was also entitled to classify the rape offending as category 1 harm. The additional degradation and the victim’s prolonged detention justified that classification. The appellant’s breach of trust and previous violence against the victim justified category A culpability.

4. The applicable category 1A guideline had a starting point of 15 years and a range of 13 to 19 years. The court accepted that the offences, including the non-sexual violence, were very serious. It nevertheless held that their severity did not warrant a custodial term outside that range.

5. The trial judge’s advantage from having conducted the trial, and the care taken in sentencing, were recognised. Even so, 21 years’ custody was too long for this immature appellant. A custodial term of 18 years properly reflected the totality of the offending. The unchallenged finding of dangerousness remained sufficient to require an extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of reducing the custodial term for count 8 from 21 years to 18 years, while retaining a four-year extended licence period.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Sentenced the appellant on 24 September 2018, including an extended sentence of 25 years for count 8.