R v Rosana Awan

In sentencing for repeated sexual offences against a child, substantial planning, grooming, duration and psychological harm may justify moving above the top of the applicable guideline range. A neurological condition such as ADHD reduces culpability only where the evidence establishes a meaningful connection with the offending. Complex planning, grooming and sustained offending may point against such a reduction. Possible disinhibition does not, without more, lessen culpability. Delay for which the offender is not responsible is relevant mitigation, but its weight must be assessed alongside its impact on the victim and the offender’s other circumstances. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a severe sentence that, after those matters are considered, is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted after trial at the Crown Court at Leicester of four counts of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 10. The offences occurred over more than two years while the complainant was aged between 13 and 15 and involved grooming, repeated sexual conduct and significant psychological harm.

She received ten years’ imprisonment on the two lead counts, with concurrent four-year sentences on the remaining counts, together with ancillary orders. She appealed against sentence, arguing that insufficient weight had been given to her age, immaturity, ADHD, delay, remorse and the impact of imprisonment on her daughter. The central issues were whether the sentence could exceed the guideline range and whether the personal mitigation, including neurological impairment and delay, required a reduction.

Appeal dismissed. The sentence of ten years’ imprisonment was severe but not manifestly excessive.

1. The lead offences fell within category 1 for harm and culpability A. The offending involved significant planning, grooming, exploitation of trust, severe psychological harm and a prolonged period containing numerous incidents. Although the guideline starting point for a single offence under section 9 or section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was five years, with a range of four to ten years, the sentencing judge was entitled to move substantially above the top of that range when reflecting the overall criminality.
2. The judge was entitled to treat counts 3 and 4 as lead offences and impose concurrent sentences so as to reflect totality. Having heard the trial, he was best placed to assess the overall criminality and was entitled to characterise the case as one involving classic grooming.
3. The appellant’s age and immaturity at the time of offending were mitigating factors. The sentencing guideline concerning mental disorders, developmental disorders and neurological impairment required the sentencer to state whether culpability was reduced and, if so, to what extent. The judge made no such reference, from which the court inferred that he had concluded that the appellant’s culpability was not reduced by her ADHD. That conclusion was open to him. Complex planning, grooming and sustained offending were inconsistent with ADHD having played a significant mitigating role. Possible disinhibition did not lessen culpability for the deliberate conduct.
4. The delay, which was not the appellant’s fault, was relevant mitigation. Its effect had to be assessed with the anxiety and stress suffered by the complainant, as well as the appellant’s age, immaturity, ADHD, family circumstances and other mitigation. The court concluded that all those matters had been sufficiently taken into account.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 21 November 2025, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1607.
• Crown Court at Leicester — Following trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on the lead counts, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.