R v Alin-Vasile Iercosan

A rape offence involving a significant degree of planning falls within Culpability A under the offence-specific sentencing guideline. The extreme impact of a combination of Category 2 harm factors may elevate the offence to Category 1 harm. A sentencing court must select the resulting guideline starting point, adjust it for aggravation and personal mitigation, and then apply the appropriate guilty-plea reduction. An erroneous categorisation which produces a substantially lower sentence may render the sentence unduly lenient.

The Attorney General sought permission to refer as unduly lenient the respondent’s sentence for rape. The respondent had followed the victim after she left a nightclub, forced her into an alleyway and raped her. Earlier CCTV showed him approaching or following five women and making calls to himself to appear less threatening.

At Taunton Crown Court, the respondent pleaded guilty and received an extended sentence comprising seven years and one month’s custody and a three-year extension period. The sentencing judge found planning and several Category 2 harm features, but treated the offending as on the cusp of Categories 1 and 2 and did not expressly address Culpability A. The issue was the correct guideline categorisation and sentence.

1. The reference was allowed. Permission was granted and the custodial term of the extended sentence was increased from seven years and one month to 10 years and 10 months. The three-year extension period remained in place.

2. The offending was properly classified as Culpability A. There was a significant degree of planning. The respondent had spent hours moving around the town centre, approached or followed five women, used calls to himself to appear less threatening, followed the victim for about 10 minutes, checked his surroundings, and forced her into an alleyway.

3. The combination of Category 2 harm features had an extreme impact and placed the offence in Category 1 harm. Those features included the victim’s vulnerability, violence beyond that inherent in rape, degradation and humiliation, and severe psychological harm. The correct starting point was therefore 15 years for a Category 1A offence.

4. After allowing for aggravating features not sufficiently reflected in the starting point, personal mitigation, and the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, the appropriate custodial sentence was 10 years and 10 months. The original extended-sentence assessment of dangerousness and the three-year extension period were maintained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s reference was allowed and the custodial term was increased.
• Crown Court at Taunton: On 21 April 2023, the respondent was sentenced to seven years and one month’s imprisonment with a three-year extension period.