R v FPK

An extended sentence must be attached to a specified custodial sentence. A global approach to the custodial term and extension period is impermissible. Where the sentencing structure shows which lead count was intended to carry the extension, an appellate court may correct the record and specify that count.

Within the applicable guideline range, a judge may increase the lead sentence to reflect additional offending made concurrent, including to ensure that one sentence carries the extension. A concurrent sentence must nevertheless be accurately recorded after the guilty-plea reduction, even where the correction does not alter the overall term.

FPK appealed against sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Shrewsbury following guilty pleas to eight sexual offences against two child complainants. He received a total custodial term of 19 years and six months, with an extension period of four years and six months.

The renewed grounds alleged that the starting point and uplift on the lead rape count were excessive. Leave had also been granted to address two errors in the sentencing record: the failure to identify the count to which the extended sentence attached, and an inconsistency in the sentence recorded for a concurrent count of causing a child to engage in sexual activity.

1. The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence. A starting point of 15 years for the lead count, rather than the guideline starting point of 13 years, was permissible in light of the preceding offending and its effect on the victims. The judge had properly applied the guidelines.

2. The judge had also been entitled to increase the lead sentence to reflect the other offending which was made concurrent. The increase ensured that there was one custodial sentence to which the extension period could attach.

3. However, the extended sentence could not be imposed globally. Following R v DJ [2015] 2 Cr App R(S) 16, the court held that the sentence attracting the extension had to be specified. The sentencing structure showed that count 2 was intended to be that sentence. The court therefore attached the four-year-six-month extension period to count 2.

4. Count 16, of three years’ imprisonment, was to be served first, with count 17 concurrent. The sentence on count 2 was consecutive to count 16, and all other sentences were concurrent with count 2.

5. The sentencing remarks wrongly recorded count 4 as six years. The correct concurrent sentence was three years and nine months, being five years less the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction. That correction did not alter the overall custodial term or the ancillary orders.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused. The court adjusted the sentencing record to attach the extended sentence to count 2 and to record the correct concurrent sentence on count 4.
• Crown Court at Shrewsbury — FPK pleaded guilty to eight sexual offences against children and was sentenced to 19 years and six months’ imprisonment with a four-year-six-month extension period.