REGINA v C

In repeated rape cases, the reference in the Sexual Offences Guidelines to a campaign of rape is illustrative, not a prerequisite. Repeat, very serious offending against a young victim may justify a sentence above the range normally appropriate for a single offence. The totality principle remains separately applicable. The aggregate sentence for multiple offences must be just and proportionate, even where it is below the arithmetical total of sentences that might otherwise be imposed.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Norwich, the appellant was convicted of three rapes of his 14-year-old niece. He received concurrent sentences of 10 years on counts 1 and 2 and 25 years on count 6, producing a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentence on count 6 exceeded the Sexual Offences Guidelines and that the judge had failed to apply the Totality Guideline. The central issues were whether the offending fell within the category of exceptionally serious repeated rape and whether the overall sentence was just and proportionate.

1. Guideline category. In cases of repeated rape, the Sexual Offences Guidelines identify a campaign of rape as an example of offending that may justify a sentence of 20 years or more. That example is not a legal requirement. The court need not decide whether the offending is properly described as a campaign. Repeat, very serious offending against a young victim may, by its inherent severity, justify a sentence longer than would normally be imposed for a single offence.
2. Application to the offending. The judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant’s course of conduct fell comfortably within that category. The offending involved three rapes, committed against a young victim, with serious aggravating features including the repeated nature of the conduct and the appellant’s relevant criminal record.
3. Totality. The totality issue remained separate. Although the 25-year sentence was lower than the aggregate that would have resulted from simply adding the appropriate sentence for each offence, the total sentence still had to be just and proportionate in all the circumstances. The seriousness of the aggravating features did not prevent the aggregate sentence from being excessive.
4. Disposition. The sentence was reduced from 25 years’ imprisonment to 21 years’ imprisonment. The appeal was allowed to that limited extent.

• Crown Court at Norwich: The appellant was convicted of three rapes and sentenced to concurrent terms producing a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence was reduced to 21 years’ imprisonment: [2022] EWCA Crim 614.