R v John Patrick Harrop

In a sentence appeal concerning historic sexual offending, the court may consider the sentence that would probably have been imposed had related offending, committed during the same period, been sentenced together. That assessment must give proper effect to the totality principle.

A sentence is not manifestly excessive where the seriousness of repeated offending, including very young age, abuse of trust and lasting harm, supports a higher guideline category and substantial uplifts from the starting point. Personal mitigation and subsequent progress do not require a reduction that fails to reflect offending for which the offender has not previously been sentenced.

The appellant was convicted at Durham Crown Court of three counts of oral rape of a child under 13 and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13, committed against C1 between 2009 and 2011. He received an eight-year special custodial sentence, comprising seven years’ custody and a one-year licence period, with concurrent five-year sentences for the assaults.

He had previously received an extended sentence in 2012 for sexual offending against C1’s sister during the same period. He appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to his progress, vulnerability and offence-free conduct after release, and that the Recorder had applied the sentencing exercise too prescriptively. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The aggregate eight-year special custodial sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder had treated the rape offending as category 3B. The court held that, viewed in isolation, it would have merited category 2A treatment under the relevant guideline. C1 was four when the abuse began. The offending involved abuse of trust and lifelong impact. It was also aggravated by the appellant’s previous offending against C1’s sister and by its repeated nature.

3. The court accepted the substantial personal mitigation: the appellant had remained offence free after release, was no longer dangerous, had made progress in custody and on licence, and was intellectually impaired and vulnerable. Those matters did not make seven years’ custody excessive. Even on the Recorder’s category 3B assessment, the eight-year starting point was for a single rape; there were at least seven rapes and two sexual-assault counts involving at least three occasions.

4. The court also applied totality. Had the sentencing court known in 2012 of the offending against both siblings, the custodial sentence would have been longer, although moderated by totality. The later sentence for offending against C1 was consistent with that assessment.

5. No statutory surcharge could be imposed because the offences predated the victim-surcharge provisions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1594, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence and clarified that no statutory surcharge was payable.
• Crown Court at Durham: Following conviction, imposed an eight-year special custodial sentence for rape and sexual assault of a child under 13.