R v WCU

Sentences exceeding 30 years should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances, with careful scrutiny. Prolonged, controlling sexual offending against three child victims may justify an exceptional post-trial sentence. Guilty-plea credit must reflect the stage at which the plea is entered. A plea on the first day of trial ordinarily attracts no more than 10 per cent, although limited flexibility may be appropriate for a late indication shortly before trial. Credit cannot include remorse without evidence of it. The appellate court must assess whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive as a whole. An extended sentence cannot coexist with a special custodial sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to 22 sexual offences against three victims, and on 20 November 2024 received three concurrent extended sentences of 33 years, comprising 30 years’ custody and three years on extended licence. Other concurrent sentences included special custodial sentences. He appealed with leave, challenging the assessment of an exceptional post-trial sentence above 30 years and the credit allowed for his late guilty pleas. The court also considered the legality of the special custodial sentences and the victim surcharge.

The appeal was allowed to the extent stated. The court quashed the extended sentences of 33 years and substituted extended sentences comprising 28 years’ custody and three years on extended licence, an overall term of 31 years.

1. Exceptional sentence. Applying the principles in R v AYO [2022] EWCA Crim 127, sentences exceeding 30 years should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances. The judge had identified sufficient features: three victims, at least 53 rapes, at least 28 offences contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and prolonged control, manipulation and cruelty. The case therefore justified an exceptional post-trial sentence. However, having regard to Part 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Definitive Guideline, the appropriate sentence after trial was 33 years, not 37½ years.
2. Overall assessment and guilty-plea credit. Whether the end result was manifestly excessive had to be assessed as a whole, rather than by compartmentalising individual issues. There was no material mitigation. The pleas were entered on the first day of trial, although an earlier indication might have spared the victims months of anguish. Under the guideline, one-third credit applied at the first hearing at which a plea or indication was sought; after that stage the maximum was 25 per cent, and a first-day-of-trial plea ordinarily attracted a maximum of 10 per cent. Some flexibility around 10 per cent was justified, but 20 per cent was excessive. No separate deduction for remorse was warranted.
3. Special custodial sentences and surcharge. Section 278(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020, as illustrated by R v Powell [2018] EWCA Crim 1074, prevented special custodial sentences being imposed alongside an extended sentence. The unlawful special custodial sentences were quashed and replaced with determinate sentences, all sentences remaining concurrent. No victim surcharge applied because some offending pre-dated the commencement of the relevant legislation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): substituted extended sentences of 31 years overall, corrected the unlawful special custodial sentences, and held that no victim surcharge applied. The appeal was allowed to this extent only: [2025] EWCA Crim 1414.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: following guilty pleas, imposed three concurrent extended sentences of 33 years on 20 November 2024, with other concurrent sentences.