R v Rana Smiha Reddy Yellambai

When sentencing after a jury verdict, the judge must use the only factual interpretation that the verdict establishes. If the verdict leaves an important sentencing issue open, the judge must determine the facts to the criminal standard. If unable to be sure, the interpretation most favourable to the offender must be adopted.

A judge may take account of a relevant motive or intention that was not an essential ingredient of the offence and was not the subject of a separate conviction. Acquittals or unresolved verdicts on separate sexual offences do not prevent a finding of an intention to rape where the evidence establishes that intention. Sentences imposed before a definitive sentencing guideline came into force must be assessed under the law and practice then applicable.

Three appellants were convicted after a retrial in the Crown Court at Leicester of kidnapping a woman whom they had deceived into entering their car. The trial judge sentenced each to ten years’ imprisonment, finding that the kidnapping had a sexual motive and that, by the time the victim was taken to a secluded location, the appellants intended to rape her.

The appellants appealed against sentence. They argued that the evidence did not justify that factual basis, particularly in light of acquittals or jury disagreements on separate sexual-offence counts; that the sentences were manifestly excessive; and that they were not equally culpable. The central issues were the proper factual basis for sentence, the relevance of the later definitive kidnapping guideline, and comparative culpability.

1. Appeals dismissed. The trial judge had adopted the correct approach. Where a jury’s verdict admits only one possible factual interpretation, sentence must proceed on that basis. Where it leaves an important issue open, the sentencing judge must decide the facts to the criminal standard. If unable to be sure, the judge must adopt the interpretation most favourable to the offender. This approach was supported by R v King [2017] EWCA Crim 128 and R v McGlade (1990-1991) 12 Cr App R(S) 105 (paras [27]-[28]).
2. The judge was entitled, and required, to determine motive because it was relevant to the seriousness of the kidnapping. The kidnap conviction did not determine the motive. The judge could therefore find that the appellants initially intended consensual sexual activity and later intended rape, provided he was sure of those facts. That finding did not sentence the appellants for rape or another sexual offence. R v Davies [1989] 1 Cr App R(S) 380 concerned the different situation of sentencing for buggery as if the defendant had been convicted of rape, absent a Newton hearing, and did not establish a general prohibition on finding facts relevant to sentence which were not essential ingredients of the offence (paras [29]-[37]).
3. Acquittals or jury disagreement on the separate sexual-offence counts did not make the sentencing basis inconsistent. An intention to rape is distinct from the completed act. The verdicts could reflect uncertainty about participation, knowledge, belief in consent, or the identity and nature of the act, without rejecting the victim’s evidence. The evidence, including the circumstances of the kidnapping and the absence of any credible alternative motive, amply supported the judge’s conclusions (paras [35]-[54]).
4. The ten-year sentences were not manifestly excessive. The later definitive guideline was not retrospective and did not govern sentences imposed before 1 April 2025. The sentences had to be assessed under the law and sentencing practice applicable when imposed: R v Boakye [2012] EWCA Crim 838 at [17] (para [66]). The earlier authorities emphasised that kidnapping sentences were fact specific and could reach double figures even without hostage-taking, ransom demands or significant violence (paras [67]-[69]).
5. The same sentence for all three appellants was justified. Their kidnapping was a joint enterprise. Each played a necessary and substantial role, and there was no evidential basis for treating the driver as less culpable (paras [77]-[78]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted by the full court in [2025] EWCA Crim 364. The appeals against sentence were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Leicester: Following a retrial, the appellants were convicted of kidnapping on 11 September 2023 and sentenced by His Honour Judge Brown on 6 October 2023 to ten years’ imprisonment each.