R v Nathan Hunter

Where an indictment for an offence under section 62 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not identify the intended sexual offence, the omission does not itself make the proceedings unfair. Fairness must be assessed in context, including whether the defendant knew the prosecution case and had an opportunity to challenge it. A defendant who pleads guilty on the full facts, advances no basis of plea and declines a Newton hearing is ordinarily sentenced on the prosecution case supported by unchallenged evidence, not the most favourable version available. Intention to rape may be inferred from the evidence. A finding of dangerousness and sufficient seriousness justified life imprisonment, and the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames to seven offences, including an offence under section 62 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, kidnapping, strangulation and assaults on police officers. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of four years and 130 days. On appeal against sentence, he argued that the indictment had not identified the intended sexual offence, that the judge had wrongly sentenced him on an intention to rape, and that the resulting sentence was excessive. The central issues were whether the proceedings were fair and whether the judge was entitled to rely on the unchallenged prosecution case.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The omission from the section 62 indictment of the particular intended sexual offence did not automatically render the proceedings defective or unfair. Adopting the fairness-based approach in R v Pacurar [2016] EWCA Crim 569, the court considered whether the appellant knew the case he had to meet and had adequate safeguards and opportunity to challenge it. The prosecution sentencing note had identified an intention to rape several months before sentence. The appellant could have advanced an alternative account or sought a Newton hearing, but did neither. There was no unfairness.
2. Under the principles in R v Tolera (Nathan) [1999] 1 Cr App R 29, a defendant who pleads guilty on the full facts is ordinarily sentenced on the prosecution case unless an alternative written basis is accepted. Where a material factual dispute would affect sentence, the defence must make its alternative case clear and seek a Newton hearing. The appellant was not entitled to sentence on the most favourable version of events.
3. The judge was entitled to conclude, to the criminal standard, that the appellant intended to rape the victim. The conclusion was supported cumulatively by his targeting and pursuit of her, the glove, the violence, his attempts to overcome her resistance, witness evidence, his interview and the similarity of his previous offending.
4. The court noted that the sentencing judge had not addressed the section 62 offence guideline, but no challenge was made on that basis. Having found the appellant dangerous, the judge was entitled to impose life imprisonment under section 285(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020. The approach to the statutory provisions and the minimum term of four years and 130 days was proper. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [2024] EWCA Crim 1464.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced on 24 January 2024 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of four years and 130 days.