R v RDP

Where custody for a child is unavoidable, the term must be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The adult guideline may be used as a reference, including a rough age-related reduction, but it must not be applied mechanically. Individual factors concerning the offence and the child have greatest importance. A sentencing judge may proceed directly to the child sentencing guidance where custody is inevitable. A lengthy extension period may be justified by reports identifying concerns about empathy, insight and the relationship between stated views and behaviour. An appellate court will not interfere with the sentencing judge’s evaluative judgment without proper reason.

RDP, aged 15 at the time of the final offence, was convicted after trial of two rapes, assault by penetration, oral rape and sexual assault against four complainants. He was committed for sentence under section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 18 July 2025, the Crown Court at Salisbury imposed an extended sentence comprising eight years’ custody and six years’ extended licence, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

RDP sought leave to appeal, arguing that both the custodial term and the extension period were excessive given his age, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation. Dangerousness and the ancillary orders were not challenged. The central issues were whether the judge had applied the child sentencing guidance correctly and whether the extension period was excessive.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused leave to appeal.

1. Approach to custody. The court accepted that custody was inevitable in this case. It was therefore permissible for the sentencing judge to proceed directly to the child sentencing guidance when determining the appropriate length of custody. There was no error in failing first to consider a lesser disposal that was not realistically available on the facts.
2. Length of the custodial term. Where custody is unavoidable, the term must be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The equivalent adult guideline may be considered, but the suggested reduction for a child aged 15 to 17 is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanically. The individual factors relating to the offence and the child are of greatest importance. The judge had followed that approach and had made an appropriate allowance for age.
3. The court did not need to re-categorise the lead rape as a potentially more serious Category 2A offence, despite the complainant’s intoxication, in order to uphold the sentence reached under Category 3A. Eight years was very long for a child, but was not excessive against the background of the repeated serious offences and the expert assessments.
4. Extension period. Concerns in the youth justice and psychiatric material about RDP’s empathy and insight, together with inconsistencies between expressed views and behaviour, justified the lengthy extension period. The court could identify no reason to interfere with the sentencing judge’s judgment on that issue.

The extended sentence of detention, comprising eight years’ custody and six years’ extended licence, therefore remained in force.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 27 November 2025, the court refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1829.
2. Crown Court at Salisbury — On 18 July 2025, HHJ Feest KC imposed an extended sentence comprising eight years’ custody and six years’ extended licence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.