R v Emil Anton

For culpability under the Sentencing Guidelines, whether an offence involves a significant degree of planning is fact-sensitive and is a matter of judgment and degree for the sentencing judge. The relevant indicators are not exhaustive. In a predatory rape or attempted rape, significant planning may exist even where planning is brief, unsophisticated and the victim was not previously identified. Pursuing a vulnerable victim, taking a weapon and selecting a suitable location may together justify the highest culpability category. The comparison must be between categories A and B within the same harm category. A life sentence remains a sentence of last resort where an extended sentence would not adequately protect the public against serious risk.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Warwick to attempted rape, threatening another with an offensive weapon and theft. He received a life sentence for attempted rape, with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months less time spent on remand, together with a concurrent sentence for threatening with an offensive weapon.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the categorisation of harm and culpability, the notional determinate sentence, and the decision that a life sentence was necessary. The central issues were whether the circumstances amounted to significant planning and whether an extended sentence would sufficiently protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed. The life sentence and the minimum term were upheld.

1. The court rejected the challenge to the harm categorisation. The combination of severe psychological harm, humiliation, abduction, a sustained incident, threats with a knife and the complainant’s particular vulnerability justified placing the attempted rape in category 1. The offence came very close to a completed rape in both harm and culpability.
2. Whether there was a significant degree of planning was a fact-sensitive question involving judgment and degree. The indicators identified in R v Dogra [2019] EWCA Crim 145 were not exhaustive and had to be considered in context. The court disapproved the comparison in that case between categories 1A and 2A. The correct comparison was between categories A and B within the same harm category.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to find significant planning. The appellant chose to pursue a particularly vulnerable child, took a knife to threaten her and used a location he considered suitable. In predatory rape or attempted rape, planning need not be lengthy, sophisticated or preceded by identification of a particular victim. R v Jones (Kelsey) [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 1 and R v Patrick [2021] EWCA Crim 253 supported that approach. R v Dogra and R v Teklu [2018] 1 Cr App R(S) 12 were not Sentencing Guidelines cases, but decisions reviewing the exercise of judgment in individual cases.
4. The notional determinate sentence was not excessive. The aggravating features were properly weighed and there were no significant mitigating factors. The finding of dangerousness was sound. Having regard to the seriousness of the present offence, the previous violent offending and the pre-sentence report, an extended sentence would not sufficiently protect the public. A life sentence, as a sentence of last resort, was therefore justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed under [2023] EWCA Crim 1039.
• Crown Court at Warwick — Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted rape, with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months less 547 days spent on remand, and a concurrent sentence of 30 months for threatening another with an offensive weapon.