R v Jacob Lee

Sentence for kidnapping requires a close, fact-specific appraisal rather than a fixed guideline. Relevant considerations include the detention’s duration and circumstances, restraint, violence, weapons, demands or threats, the effects on the victim and others, planning, the number of offenders, humiliation, links to other crime, and vulnerability.

A short and opportunistic attack may justify a lower single-figure starting point. It may nevertheless be exceptionally serious where a vulnerable victim is abducted, restrained and strangled, and suffers enduring harm. In that setting, a nine-year notional sentence after trial was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to kidnapping and intentional strangulation of a 15-year-old complainant. He had dragged her from the street into a secluded area, forced her to the ground, restrained her with her clothing over her head, and strangled her until she stopped screaming.

The judge imposed an extended sentence of 11 years, comprising seven years’ custody and a four-year extension period. A concurrent three-year sentence was imposed for strangulation, and a suspended sentence was activated concurrently. With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed only the seven-year custodial term, contending that the judge’s nine-year starting point after trial was too high.

Appeal dismissed. The seven-year custodial term, after credit for the guilty plea, was not manifestly excessive.

1. There is no sentencing guideline for kidnapping. The Court applied the fact-specific approach in Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 92 and 93 of 2004 (R v Gibney) [2014] EWCA Crim 2713. It assessed the duration and circumstances of detention, restraint, violence, effect on the victim, planning and vulnerability. Not every listed consideration was present, but those that were present carried substantial weight.

2. The offending was exceptionally serious. The complainant, a lone 15-year-old, was seized from behind in darkness and taken to a secluded place near her home. She was forcefully restrained, unable to see or breathe properly, and strangled until silenced. The incident was brief, but its consequences for the complainant and her family were profound and enduring. The appellant’s previous violent conviction against a vulnerable woman and commission of these offences during the operational period of a suspended sentence were further aggravating features.

3. Applying Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 102 to 103 of 2014 (R v Perkins) [2014] EWCA Crim 2922, the case was not in the hostage-taking or ransom category for which a 16-year starting point might be appropriate. Its grave features could otherwise have justified a double-figure sentence. The short-lived and ultimately opportunistic nature of the attack justified a lower single-figure starting point. The judge’s notional nine-year sentence after trial was therefore within the proper range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — appeal against sentence dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1495.
• Crown Court at Manchester — following guilty pleas, imposed an extended sentence of 11 years comprising seven years’ custody and a four-year extension period.