R v Michael James Woods

Adults sentenced for offences committed at age 18 are sentenced under the regime in force at the date of sentence, subject to the maximum available when the offence was committed. Current guidelines, especially where maximum sentences have increased, must not be applied mechanistically. Age and immaturity remain relevant mitigation because full adult maturity is not attained overnight. That mitigation must be balanced against the seriousness of the offending, including coercion, control, humiliation, degradation and lasting harm. Victim surcharge provisions do not apply retrospectively to offences committed before those provisions came into force.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against concurrent extended sentences of 26 years imposed by Teesside Crown Court for three rapes committed between August 2000 and December 2001, when he was 18, together with a concurrent sentence for failing to comply with notification requirements. The first proposed ground, concerning the significant risk required for an extended sentence, was not renewed. The remaining ground challenged the custodial terms as excessive in view of the applicant’s age at the time of the offending and the passage of more than 20 years. The central issue was the proper sentencing approach for an adult who offended at age 18.

Appeal allowed. Leave to appeal was granted. The extended sentences of 26 years were quashed and concurrent extended sentences of 23 years substituted, each comprising 18 years’ custody and five years on extended licence.

1. R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 concerns sentencing adults for offences committed as children. Its approach requires regard to the maximum sentence available at or shortly after the offending and uses as a starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed shortly after the offence. Ahmed expressly preserved the approach in R v H(J) [2011] EWCA Crim 2753 and R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 for offenders who had attained 18.
2. For such offenders, the applicable regime is that in force at sentencing, not the regime in force when the offence was committed, provided that the sentence does not exceed the maximum available at the time of offending. Sentencing guidelines must not be applied mechanically by reference to greatly increased current maxima.
3. The offending involved serious sexual violence, coercion, control, humiliation and degradation, and had caused profound and lifelong harm. Those features justified a substantial sentence. However, the court was required to give due weight to the fact that all three offences were committed when the applicant was 18 and were his first sexual offences. A person does not attain full adult maturity overnight, even where there is no evidence of immaturity compared with peers. Applying a measured approach, the 26-year sentence was manifestly excessive.
4. The victim surcharge did not apply because the offences pre-dated the surcharge provisions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. The concurrent extended sentences of 26 years were quashed and replaced with concurrent extended sentences of 23 years.
• Teesside Crown Court: Imposed concurrent extended sentences of 26 years, comprising 21 years’ custody and five years on extended licence.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused leave to appeal; the application was renewed before the full court.