R v MCK

In assessing dangerousness, the court must consider the combined effect of all relevant circumstances. Sustained targeted sexual offending, grooming, an entrenched sexual interest in young children, continuing denial and a high-risk assessment may support a finding of significant risk of serious specified offending. Age and the absence of relevant previous convictions must be considered, but may not outweigh those factors. When sentencing multiple serious offences, the judge should take an overall approach, select a lead offence, apply the sentencing guidelines, reflect the totality and account for additional victims. A custodial term consistent with the guidelines and just and proportionate will not be excessive merely because the offender is older or has limited previous convictions.

The applicant was sentenced by the Central Criminal Court on 22 October 2024 after conviction for numerous sexual offences against two sisters and guilty pleas to offences involving indecent images of children. The judge imposed an extended determinate sentence comprising 21 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant argued that the finding of dangerousness was unreasonable and that the custodial term was excessive given his age and limited criminal record. The central issues were whether either proposed ground was arguable.

1. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment of the court delivered by Mrs Justice Heather Williams, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. Neither proposed ground was arguable.

2. The finding of dangerousness had a sound evidential basis. The court relied on the pre-sentence report, the sustained and targeted nature of the offending, the applicant’s entrenched sexual interest in young females, and his continuing failure to acknowledge the sexual offending. These matters, taken together, supported the conclusion that he posed a significant risk of committing serious specified offences. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant’s age and lack of relevant previous convictions, but those matters did not counter the combined effect of the other factors.

3. The sentencing judge had adopted the correct overall approach. He treated the most serious multiple-incident count as the lead offence, identified the appropriate guideline categories and starting points, and increased the sentence to reflect the totality of the offending, including the offences against a second victim. He made appropriate adjustments for totality.

4. The resulting 21-year custodial term was in line with the sentencing guidelines and was just and proportionate in the circumstances. The court therefore refused leave to appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, it made no loss of time order.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 3 October 2025, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence under [2025] EWCA Crim 1371.
2. Central Criminal Court: on 22 October 2024, His Honour Judge Lickley KC imposed an extended determinate sentence comprising 21 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.