R v Nathan Woods-Springer

Where an extended sentence is imposed for multiple offending, a special custodial sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 cannot also be imposed for associated offences. An unlawful structure should be corrected by giving effect to the sentencing judge’s clear underlying intention and removing any unauthorised licence period. The total sentence must remain just and proportionate. Comparisons with other cases have limited value, but particularly serious sexual offending may justify exceeding the usual level of about 30 years after trial. A notional 45-year sentence was excessive; a 33-year term after trial, reduced for guilty pleas to 22 years’ custody, was substituted.

The applicant pleaded guilty to numerous sexual and indecent-image offences involving six children. On 28 June 2024, HHJ Morris at the Crown Court at York imposed a 36-year extended sentence, comprising 30 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence, together with concurrent special custodial sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

On referral of the application to the Full Court, the issues were whether the sentence structure was lawful and whether the custodial term was manifestly excessive in light of the number and seriousness of the offences, the applicant’s admissions and guilty pleas, and totality.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent set out in the final order.

1. The structure of the sentences was unlawful. Following the rule applied in R v Powell [2018] EWCA Crim 1074, where an extended sentence is imposed in a case of multiple offending, the sentencing court cannot impose a special custodial sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for another associated offence. The unlawful sentences could be corrected by substituting the determinate sentences which the judge had clearly intended to impose and removing the additional licence period. The extended sentence itself was unaffected.

2. The 30-year custodial term was manifestly excessive. The guidance in R v Ayo [2022] EWCA Crim 1271 showed that sentence comparisons provide limited assistance, while particularly serious offending may justify exceeding about 30 years after trial. Nevertheless, the total sentence must remain just and proportionate. Although the offending was exceptionally serious and involved multiple young victims, the appropriate notional sentence after trial was in the region of 33 years, rather than 45 years. Giving full credit for the guilty pleas produced a custodial term of 22 years, with the six-year extended licence retained.

3. The court substituted determinate sentences of 10 years for count 1 on the second indictment and counts 2, 6, 8 and 9 on the first indictment, concurrent with each other and the other sentences. It substituted seven-year determinate sentences for counts 3, 7 and 10 on the first indictment, also concurrent. The lead count became an extended sentence of 28 years, comprising 22 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Leave granted; the sentence structure was corrected and the appeal was allowed to that extent. The lead extended sentence was reduced to 28 years, comprising 22 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1239.
• Crown Court at York — HHJ Morris imposed a 36-year extended sentence on 28 June 2024, comprising 30 years’ custody and a six-year extended licence, with other sentences concurrent.