R v ADX

A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range of sentences which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. When sentencing for multiple offences, the court must assess the sentence for each type of offending and ensure that the aggregate sentence reflects all the offending, its harm and culpability, and the aggravating and mitigating factors. Separate victims and separate offending over different periods will generally justify consecutive sentences. Totality requires a just and proportionate aggregate sentence, but it does not justify an extensive reduction which fails to reflect serious and repeated offending.

The offender pleaded guilty to numerous sexual offences against two children in his family, committed over separate periods. The Crown Court imposed an overall sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment, using lead offences for each victim and making substantial reductions for totality. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The reduction for guilty pleas was not challenged before the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the sentences for each victim reflected all the offending and whether the overall reduction for totality was justified.

1. The reference was allowed. Applying the formulation in Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, the Court held that the 11-year sentence fell outside the range which the sentencing judge could reasonably consider appropriate. Leave to refer the sentence was granted.
2. In relation to C1, the offending involved repeated sexual abuse between the ages of nine and 13, multiple-incident counts and a gross breach of trust. The judge’s post-trial assessment of eight years was very modest. In relation to C2, the rape of a 14-year-old child, together with numerous penetrative and sexual assaults, required a post-trial sentence of at least 17 years. The 20 per cent reduction for the guilty pleas was not unreasonable.
3. The Court applied the revised totality guideline. The court must first assess the sentence for each individual offence, then determine whether concurrent or consecutive sentences are appropriate, and finally test the overall sentence against the requirement that it be just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. Separate victims subjected to separate offences over different periods will generally call for consecutive sentences.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to adopt lead offences for each victim, but he failed to assess all types of offending, particularly the serious assaults by penetration against C2. His extensive downward adjustments did not reflect the offending against either victim or the indictment as a whole. Only a modest adjustment from the aggregate of 19 years 10 months was justified.
5. The Court quashed the sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of five years six months on the lead offence concerning C1 and 12 years on the rape count concerning C2, to run consecutively, making an overall sentence of 17 years six months. The sentence announced in open court was treated as the operative sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court found the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted an overall sentence of 17 years six months’ imprisonment.
2. Crown Court: Following guilty pleas, the offender was sentenced on 29 November 2023 to 11 years’ imprisonment for the totality of the offending.