Hlal, R. v

When sentencing for multiple serious offences, a judge may make a significant upward adjustment, including outside the category range for a single offence, to reflect the additional offences and totality. Vulnerability and severe psychological harm may justify category 2 harm for rape, while acting essentially with another offender may support culpability A. Youth and immaturity must be considered, but do not prevent a severe sentence where offending is grave, violent, targeted at vulnerable victims, committed against a drug-dealing background or on bail, particularly where there are relevant antecedents. An extension of time should be refused where no good reason is shown and the extension would serve no purpose.

Following conviction after trial for two rapes and other offences, the applicant was sentenced at Hove Crown Court on 26 October 2018 to an extended sentence comprising 15 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period. He sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence after notification of the single judge’s refusal had been sent to the wrong prison. The proposed grounds alleged that the sentence was manifestly excessive and failed sufficiently to reflect his youth, lack of maturity and less serious previous convictions. The central issues were whether there was good reason to extend time and whether the sentence was arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Application refused. The court refused an extension of time and refused leave to appeal against sentence.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the rape offences as involving category 2 harm. The victims were vulnerable and had suffered severe psychological harm. The judge was also entitled to assess culpability as category A because the applicant had essentially acted with his co-defendant.
2. For a single category 2A rape, the starting point was 10 years’ custody, with a range of 9 to 13 years. A significant upward adjustment, including a sentence outside that range, was permissible to reflect two rape offences and the totality of the offending. The sentencing remarks showed that this was the approach taken, and it was not open to criticism.
3. The court took the applicant’s age of 19 at the time of the main offending into account. That consideration did not make the sentence arguably excessive in the circumstances. The offences were grave, involved vulnerable victims and violence or threats, occurred against a background of cuckooing for drug dealing, and included a second rape committed while the applicant was on bail. His previous convictions for drug offences and robbery also meant that he was not of good character.
4. There was no good reason for the delay. Extending time would serve no purpose because the proposed sentence appeal was not arguable as manifestly excessive.
5. For accuracy, the court observed that, as the applicant was aged 20 at conviction, the sentence should have been recorded as detention in a young offender institution under section 96(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, rather than as imprisonment. That correction made no material difference to the applicant.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 29 April 2021, the court refused an extension of time and refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2021] EWCA Crim 690.
2. Court of Appeal single judge — Refused leave to appeal; the refusal was notified on 26 February 2019.
3. Crown Court at Hove — On 26 October 2018, HHJ Barnes sentenced the applicant to an extended sentence comprising 15 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.