R v Mark Coley

For sentencing a rape offence, previous violence against the complainant during the relationship may be an important culpability factor where it has been proved. Prolonged detention, violence or threats beyond the force inherent in rape, and particular vulnerability are distinct harm factors. Their combination may justify moving the offence from Category 2A to Category 1A under the Rape Guideline. Where separate controlling or coercive behaviour materially aggravates the overall criminality, the rape may be treated as the lead offence and the sentence adjusted to reflect totality. An appellate court will not interfere where the resulting custodial term is neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton of rape and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. He received an extended determinate sentence comprising an 18-year custodial term and a four-year extended licence. His appeal concerned only the custodial term.

The appellant argued that the rape should have been placed in Category B2 rather than Category A1, that the sentence was too high within the applicable category, and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation arising from his head injury and related mental-health difficulties. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had selected the correct guideline category and had imposed a custodial term that was excessive or wrong in principle.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the 18-year custodial term within the extended determinate sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. The complainant’s evidence described previous violence by the appellant during the relationship. That evidence had been accepted as true. It was therefore an important culpability factor under the Rape Guideline and supported placing the rape in culpability Category A.
2. There were three Category 2 harm factors: prolonged detention because the complainant was locked in the flat after the rape; violence and threats of violence beyond that inherent in the offence, including force to the neck and punches to the genital area; and the complainant’s particular vulnerability. Their combined effect justified moving the offence from Category 2A to Category 1A. The resulting starting point was 15 years, with a range of 13 to 19 years.
3. The judge was entitled to increase the sentence for the rape alone from 15 to 16 years after considering aggravating and mitigating features. The appellant’s head injury, attempts to improve himself in custody, and absence of previous sexual offending did not make that sentence excessive or wrong in principle.
4. The controlling or coercive behaviour offence involved materially different offending and could justifiably have attracted a consecutive term. The judge correctly treated the rape as the lead offence, reduced the four-year term for the second offence to two years to reflect totality, and added those two years to the 16-year sentence for rape. The resulting 18-year custodial term was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal from the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, the court dismissed the appeal against the custodial term: [2025] EWCA Crim 418.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: The appellant was convicted on 28 March 2024 and sentenced on 31 May 2024 to an extended determinate sentence comprising 18 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence.