R v Joshua Blachford

Sentencing guidelines must not be applied mechanically. A case may fall between categories where its features do not make it a straightforward example of either category. The appropriate starting point should be adjusted upwards or downwards as necessary; overlapping category ranges do not create a sentencing gap. In an Attorney General’s sentencing reference, the court must identify the lowest sentence that could reasonably have been imposed and intervene only where the sentence is sufficiently low to be unduly lenient. Serious psychological harm is distinct from aggravating features such as ejaculation. A casual or quasi-relationship may engage the Domestic Abuse Guideline without making it a compellingly significant aggravation. A sentence may be too low without being low enough to justify appellate intervention.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed by HHJ Rowland at Southampton Crown Court on 12 August 2025 under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender had pleaded guilty to rape and received three years and nine months’ imprisonment, following a 25 per cent reduction from five years. The reference contended that the offence fell within category 2B because of the victim’s severe psychological harm, and relied on the Domestic Abuse Guideline and ejaculation as aggravating features. The offender submitted that category 3B was available and that his exceptional personal mitigation justified the sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, the lowest sentence that could reasonably have been imposed.

1. The court granted leave for the reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The proper approach was to identify the lowest sentence that could reasonably have been imposed, rather than the sentence that the court itself would have preferred.
2. Sentencing guidelines were not to be applied mechanistically. The judge was entitled, just, to assess the case as falling between categories 2B and 3B. There was no gap between those categories because the range for category 3B extended to seven years, which was also the bottom of the range for category 2B. The assessment required either an upward adjustment from the category 3B starting point or a downward adjustment from the category 2B starting point, having regard to the psychological impact on the victim.
3. The Domestic Abuse Guideline was engaged, but the casual nature of the quasi-relationship did not make it a compellingly significant aggravating feature. Ejaculation was an additional aggravating feature, but the psychological harm, rather than ejaculation, was the basis for the contention that category 2B applied. The more serious the offending, the less weight generally attaches to good character as mitigation.
4. Before mitigation, seven years was the lowest sentence that could reasonably have been imposed. A two-year reduction for the offender’s personal mitigation was at the outer limits of what could reasonably be allowed. After the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, the resulting sentence was 45 months.
5. The sentence was lenient and arguably properly described as unduly lenient, but it was not so low that the Court of Appeal should intervene. The Reference was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1542, leave was granted for the statutory reference, but the Reference was dismissed.
• Southampton Crown Court: On 12 August 2025, HHJ Rowland sentenced the offender to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for rape, after applying a 25 per cent reduction to a five-year sentence for his guilty plea.