R v Jemel Soloman Hines

Severe psychological harm for sentencing purposes may be established without expert evidence where the victim’s account and the surrounding circumstances support that conclusion. Significant planning does not require sophistication or a lengthy course of preparation.

When sentencing an offender who was aged 15 to 17 at the time of the offence, a sentence broadly between one half and two thirds of the adult sentence is only a rough guide. The sentencing court must not apply it mechanically and must assess age, maturity, delay and all other relevant mitigation.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth of raping a 15-year-old girl. At the time of the offence he was 17. He was sentenced on 30 August 2023, when aged 22, to six years and six months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge treated culpability as category A and harm as category 2 under the applicable rape guideline. The judge began above the adult starting point of 10 years, then made a substantial reduction for the applicant’s age, low maturity, personal circumstances and delay.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence, contending that the classifications of harm and culpability were wrong and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The court granted a five-day extension of time but refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order. The delay was not the applicant’s fault, so the application for leave was considered on its merits.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess harm as category 2. The victim was particularly vulnerable and described profound consequences which the offending had materially worsened. The judge could find severe psychological harm without expert evidence: see Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865.

3. The judge was also entitled to assess culpability as category A. The applicant and an unidentified male deceived the victim by saying that they would take her home, took her to an isolated location, and acted together. There was sufficient premeditation and significant planning. Planning need not be sophisticated or lengthy to be significant: see Jones [2022] EWCA Crim 1066.

4. The aggravating features, including ejaculation, the secluded location, the time of the offence and commission while subject to a Referral Order, justified moving above the adult starting point. The final sentence nevertheless reflected a considerable reduction for youth and mitigation.

5. The guideline indication of a sentence broadly within one half to two thirds of the adult sentence for offenders aged 15 to 17 was a rough guide only. It was not to be applied mechanically. The judge had considered low maturity, delay, personal circumstances and the applicant’s conduct since the offence. Having heard the trial evidence, the judge was well placed to balance those matters. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2024] EWCA Crim 757, the court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed applications.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: The applicant was convicted of rape on 14 February 2023 and sentenced on 30 August 2023 to six years and six months’ imprisonment.