Osborne, R. v (Rev 1)

An extended determinate sentence may be necessary for public protection where there is a well-founded assessment that an offender presents a high risk of causing serious harm through further similar offending. A custodial term within the guideline range for a single rape offence will not be manifestly excessive merely because it is imposed concurrently for numerous grave offences committed during a sustained course of coercive conduct. The sentencing court may give substantial weight to the victim’s known vulnerability, domestic abuse, psychological harm, prior related conduct, and post-offence conduct demonstrating continuing risk.

The applicant was convicted of 15 rapes committed over about three months in 2015. Following the end of a relationship, he used fictitious social-media identities, manipulation and blackmail to coerce the complainant into sexual activity. She suffered severe psychological harm.

His Honour Judge Horton, sitting in the Crown Court at Bristol, treated each offence as Category 1A under the applicable Sentencing Council definitive guideline. He imposed concurrent extended determinate sentences of 23 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.

The applicant renewed, after refusal by a single judge, his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The issues were whether the finding of dangerousness and the custodial term were arguably wrong or manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. There was no arguable ground of appeal.

2. The concurrent custodial term of 18 years was not manifestly excessive. It fell within the guideline range for a single Category 1A rape offence, whereas the applicant had committed 15 rapes over several months. The offending was a calculated and sustained campaign of coercion, manipulation and blackmail.

3. There was an ample basis for finding the applicant dangerous. The complainant’s known vulnerability, the domestic violence, the severe psychological harm, the applicant’s earlier harassment of a former girlfriend, and his later harassment and coercion of another former partner all supported the assessment of a high risk of serious harm to future partners.

4. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that an extended determinate sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The court therefore refused the renewed application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2021] EWCA Crim 206.

• Crown Court at Bristol: the applicant was convicted of 15 rapes and received concurrent extended determinate sentences of 23 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.