MJL, R v

In sentencing rape committed in a course of coercive domestic abuse, the court must assess the combined and extreme impact of the relevant harm factors. Kidnapping, prolonged detention, violence and threats beyond that inherent in rape, isolation and vulnerability, and severe psychological harm may require category 1 harm rather than a borderline category assessment.

A persistent history of violence and controlling behaviour towards partners is a serious aggravating feature. Where those features and additional offending are present, a sentence within the guideline range may nevertheless be unduly lenient if it fails to reflect the overall seriousness.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the offender’s sentence as unduly lenient.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Leeds, the offender was convicted of kidnapping, assaults, threats to kill and three rapes of his former wife. The offences formed part of prolonged domestic abuse and controlling behaviour. He detained the victim, repeatedly threatened to kill her, committed violent and degrading sexual offences, and caused severe psychological harm.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of 14½ years’ imprisonment for the rapes, with an eight-year extended licence period. The central issue was whether that custodial term adequately reflected the guideline assessment and the overall seriousness of the offending.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave, held that concurrent custodial terms of 14½ years for the three rapes were unduly lenient, quashed them, and substituted concurrent terms of 18 years’ imprisonment. The eight-year extended licence period and the other sentences remained unchanged.

2. The offending was an extreme instance of domestic abuse by a violent and controlling offender. The court applied the Sentencing Council Guideline on Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse, which treated such conduct as particularly serious.

3. The sentencing judge had correctly identified category A culpability. However, the extreme nature and cumulative impact of the harm factors placed the rape offending in category 1 harm, rather than on the border between category 2 and category 1. Those factors included the violent kidnapping, significant detention, assaults and threats exceeding the violence inherent in rape, the victim’s vulnerability and isolation, and severe psychological harm which forced her to leave her home.

4. The offender’s extensive history of domestic violence against the victim and former partners materially aggravated the offending. Earlier imprisonment and community sentences had not deterred his repeated violence and controlling conduct. Coupled with the additional offences for sentence, those matters required a custodial term of not less than 18 years for the lead rape offences.

5. The resulting extended sentence was 26 years on each rape count, comprising 18 years’ custody and eight years’ extended licence, to run concurrently.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the rape sentences unduly lenient, and substituted concurrent custodial terms of 18 years with the existing eight-year extended licence period.
• Crown Court at Leeds: following trial, convicted the offender of kidnapping, assaults, threats to kill and three rapes, and imposed concurrent terms of 14½ years for the rapes with an eight-year extended licence period.