R v Girmay Andes

When assessing whether a victim is particularly vulnerable under a sentencing guideline, the sentencing judge may consider the evidence in the round. Factors which may not establish particular vulnerability individually may do so cumulatively. The judge is not bound by the parties’ categorisation of the offence and must apply an independent, just and proportionate analysis. On an appeal against sentence, the question is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Where the offending is serious and comprises multiple offences, the overall sentence may be adjusted upwards to reflect the totality of the offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two sexual assaults and was later convicted in the Crown Court at Manchester of raping a 15-year-old girl. He received eight years’ imprisonment for rape, with concurrent six-month sentences for the sexual assaults. The single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence.

On renewal, the applicant challenged the categorisation of the rape as category 2B under the sentencing guideline, arguing that it was category 3B and that the starting point should have been five years rather than eight. The central issues were whether the victim was particularly vulnerable and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

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

1. Particular vulnerability. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the victim’s vulnerability by considering the evidence in the round. Although the individual factors identified might not, viewed separately, have established particular vulnerability, their cumulative effect could do so. The relevant factors included the victim’s age and immaturity, her status as a looked-after child, her isolation in the early hours in a dangerous part of central Manchester, and her consumption of alcohol.
2. Independent sentencing assessment. The judge was not bound by the parties’ shared submission that the rape was a category 3B offence. He was entitled to apply his own analysis under the guideline and to impose the sentence required by a just and proportionate assessment of the offending.
3. Appellate review. The relevant question on an appeal against sentence was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The rape involved a devious and sustained plan to isolate and assault a vulnerable child. The applicant was sentenced for all three offences, and the two sexual assaults justified an upward adjustment reflecting the seriousness of the overall offending.
4. The total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment could not arguably be described as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
• Crown Court at Manchester: following conviction for rape, imposed eight years’ imprisonment, with concurrent six-month sentences for two sexual assaults.
• Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court: following guilty pleas to two sexual assaults, committed the applicant for sentence.