R v ZDX

When serious sexual offending is committed against more than one victim, consecutive sentences may properly reflect the separate victims. The sentencing court must still apply totality across all offences. A sentence for sustained offending over several years, involving gross breach of trust, severe psychological harm and additional serious offending, is not manifestly excessive where the judge has assessed the overall criminality without double counting. Where the statutory conditions for a special custodial sentence are met, the court must impose the required extended licence period.

The applicant was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of serious sexual offences against his stepdaughter and goddaughter, together with offences involving indecent images of children. He was sentenced to a total special custodial sentence of 23 years: 21 years' imprisonment and an extended licence period of two years under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. A Single Judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, arguing that insufficient regard had been paid to totality and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and whether the extended licence period was required.

Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

1. The court accepted that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences to reflect the existence of two separate victims. The applicant's previous good character provided scant mitigation for the seriousness of the offending.
2. The judge had correctly assessed the offences under the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines before applying the Totality Guideline. The sentence reflected sustained offending over eight years, gross breach of trust, grooming, severe psychological harm and the extreme nature of the indecent images. The judge had also avoided double counting the fact that some offences were committed in the victim's home or bedroom where that feature was already reflected in breach of trust.
3. The aggregate sentence of 21 years' imprisonment was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It properly reflected the very serious criminality against both victims, while shorter concurrent terms or no separate penalty were imposed for other offences.
4. The applicant was required to be sentenced under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Having passed two consecutive sentences, the judge was required to extend the licence period by two years.
5. There was no merit in the renewed application, and leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in [2025] EWCA Crim 1849.
2. Single Judge: refused the applicant's initial application for leave to appeal.
3. Crown Court at Cardiff: convicted the applicant on 11 September 2024 and sentenced him on 14 October 2024 to 21 years' imprisonment with a two-year extended licence period under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020.