R v RGX

When sentencing for multiple sexual offences, the guideline category and starting point for a single offence are only the beginning. The court must make a substantial adjustment for the totality of the offending, including its number, duration, cumulative harm and context. A familial relationship does not automatically establish abuse of trust; the issue is factual. However, a father or stepfather who is the child’s carer and exploits that relationship to commit a prolonged series of offences acts in gross breach of trust.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient sentences imposed after convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child under 13 and related sexual offences. The Crown Court imposed a total sentence of 15 years’ custody with a one-year extended licence, later correcting the form of sentence for certain counts. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had sufficiently adjusted the single-offence guideline starting point to reflect the totality of the offending and whether she had misunderstood abuse of trust in a stepfather-child relationship.

1. Leave and jurisdiction. Leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference was in time because time ran from the correction of the sentence, and the court therefore had jurisdiction.
2. Totality. The sentencing exercise required the judge first to select the correct guideline category and starting point, then to adjust the sentence to reflect that the case involved three rapes, assault by penetration and numerous further sexual offences committed over many years. A starting point and range for a single offence could not adequately represent the totality without a much more substantial adjustment.
3. Abuse of trust. Not every familial relationship involves trust for guideline purposes, and the question is one of fact. But a father or stepfather who acts as a carer and takes advantage of that relationship to commit a prolonged series of offences against the child is acting in gross breach of trust. The judge had therefore been wrong to suggest that the conduct might not constitute breach of trust.
4. Disposition. The offending was of the utmost gravity and had caused catastrophic harm. The sentences on the two rape counts, which reflected three offences of rape, were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 19 years’ imprisonment on each count, together with a one-year extended licence, making a total period of 20 years. The other sentences remained unchanged and ran concurrently.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 8 December 2023, the court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, allowed the reference, quashed the sentences on the rape counts and substituted sentences totalling 20 years.
2. Crown Court — On 8 September 2023, imposed 15 years’ custody and a one-year extended licence, later correcting the form of sentence for certain counts.