R v James Routledge

On an appeal against sentence for three rapes, the Court of Appeal held that the most serious offence may be treated as the lead offence and the overall custodial sentence may exceed its guideline range to reflect multiple offences. Youth and immaturity provide limited mitigation where repeated offending against different victims cannot be explained by age. Personal difficulties must be considered but may be outweighed by the seriousness of the offending. The totality principle must be applied. An apparently unlawful revocation of an expired community order had no practical consequence and required no further consideration.

The appellant, aged 23, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Carlisle to three offences of rape committed against three different victims. On 1 July 2022, he received concurrent sentences, including an extended sentence of 18 years comprising 15 years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.

With permission, he appealed against sentence. He argued that insufficient weight had been given to his age, maturity, upbringing and mental health, that the starting points were excessive, that totality had not been properly applied, and that the sentence was excessive. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

1. Offence categorisation and totality. There was no challenge to the categorisation of the offences. The judge was entitled to treat the most serious rape as the lead offence and to impose an overall custodial sentence significantly above the category 2B guideline range to reflect the two additional rapes. The sentencing remarks showed that the principle of totality had been considered and applied. The custodial sentence was neither too long nor wrong in principle.
2. Age and personal circumstances. The appellant’s age did not provide strong mitigation. Although he was young, the offending occurred over time and involved three different victims. The repeat offending could not be explained by age or immaturity. The judge had considered the relevant pre-sentence and NHS reports. Any mitigation arising from the appellant’s personal situation was significantly outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.
3. Community order. The judge had revoked a two-year community order after it had expired, although the new offences had been committed during its operational period. It appeared that paragraph 21(1) of Schedule 10 to the Sentencing Act 2020 gave no power to revoke the order in those circumstances. The apparently unlawful element had no practical consequence and required no further consideration.

The extended licence period was not challenged. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 22 November 2022, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. [2022] EWCA Crim 1839
• Crown Court at Carlisle: On 1 July 2022, the appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 18 years, comprising 15 years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.