R v VDT

An offence in a historic sexual-offences case may move from category 2 to category 1 where the nature or impact of relevant harm is extreme. Pregnancy following rape may be extreme in itself through its complications and consequences. Severe psychological harm may provide an alternative or cumulative basis. The passage of time can aggravate seriousness where it clarifies the profound and extreme impact of the offence. Where concurrent sentences are imposed for offending against several victims, the lead count must reflect the offender’s total criminality, subject to avoiding double counting. An aggregate sentence that fails to do so may be unduly lenient and increased on an Attorney General’s reference.

The offender was convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds of nine serious sexual offences against three victims. The offences included historic indecent assaults and rape of one victim, and later sexual offences against two other victims.

On 3 July 2025, the Crown Court imposed an extended sentence of 16 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The rape was treated as the lead offence and the sentences for the other offending were concurrent. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the rape should have been placed in category 1B and that the totality of the offending required a higher sentence. The central issues were the effect of pregnancy, its consequences, severe psychological harm and the passage of time, and how the sentence should reflect offending against all three victims.

Attorney General’s reference allowed. Leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was granted.

1. The combined nature and impact of the victim’s pregnancy, the loss of her child and the severe psychological harm suffered over many years were extreme within the Historical Sexual Offences Guideline. The complications and consequences of the pregnancy were sufficient, without more, to elevate the rape from category 2 to category 1B. Severe psychological harm also provided an alternative basis for finding an extreme impact.
2. The passage of time may aggravate or mitigate the seriousness of a historic offence. Here, the period since the rape had clarified the profound and extreme impact of the offending. The correct starting point for the rape alone was therefore 12 years’ custody, within a category range of 10 to 15 years.
3. The rape was aggravated by planning, the significant age gap, grooming, the victim’s vulnerability, efforts to conceal the offending and the offender’s use of drugs. The effect of the earlier indecent assaults had also to be reflected in the lead sentence, subject to avoiding double counting.
4. Although concurrent sentences for the offending against the other two victims were permissible, the lead sentence had to reflect the offender’s total criminality. Additional weighting was required under the totality principle. The least custodial sentence properly reflecting all the offending was 16½ years.

The sentence on count 3 was quashed. An extended sentence of 20½ years was substituted, comprising 16½ years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The victim surcharge order was quashed; all other orders remained in force.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted, the sentence was found to be unduly lenient, and an extended sentence of 20½ years was substituted.
2. Crown Court at Leeds: On 3 July 2025, HHJ Pema imposed an extended sentence of 16 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.