R v RR

For multiple serious offences of similar gravity, a concurrent custodial term may properly exceed the guideline range for a single offence. The sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it falls within the range for a more serious category of single offence, provided aggravating features and mitigation are considered. Dangerousness may be assessed from the offending before the court and reliable pre-sentence material. A risk concentrated on the complainant and an absence of recent offending do not necessarily prevent that finding. An extended sentence may remain necessary for public protection despite the offender’s age where entrenched attitudes make future risk difficult to assess.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Lewes, the applicant was convicted of 14 rapes and four indecent assaults. He was sentenced to concurrent extended determinate sentences for the rapes, comprising 18 years’ custody and an extended licence period of four years, and to four years’ imprisonment for the indecent assaults. The single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence.

On renewal, the applicant challenged the length of the custodial term, relying on the guideline range for a single offence, delay, age and health. He also challenged the findings of dangerousness and the necessity for an extended sentence. The sentences for indecent assault were not challenged.

Disposition

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Custodial term. The challenge to the 18-year custodial term was misconceived. The aggravating features justified a sentence towards the top of the category 2A range for a single offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The multiple rapes, which were of similar seriousness, justified setting the concurrent custodial term well above the range for one offence. The fact that the term fell within the range for a single category 1A offence did not make it objectionable. The judge had properly allowed for mitigation, including the applicant’s age, health and the delay between arrest and trial.
2. Dangerousness. There was no arguable basis for interfering with the finding that the applicant was dangerous. The judge was entitled to rely on the offending in the present case and the analysis in the pre-sentence report. The arguments that the risk was confined to the victim and that no sexual offences had been committed after 2006 did not undermine that conclusion.
3. Extended sentence. Although the grounds did not challenge the imposition of an extended sentence, the applicant had argued below that a determinate sentence was sufficient because of his age. The judge was entitled to conclude that an extended sentence was necessary for public protection. She faced the real difficulty of identifying when, if ever, the applicant would cease to be dangerous, particularly in light of his entrenched attitudes towards the victim and his offending. The custodial term adequately reflected his age and mitigation, and the sentence could not arguably be said to be excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused on 16 May 2023: [2023] EWCA Crim 1269.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Lewes: Following conviction after trial on 6 April 2022, the applicant was sentenced on 5 September 2022 to concurrent extended determinate sentences for the rapes and four years’ imprisonment for the indecent assaults.