R v T M D

When sentencing for a prolonged course of grave sexual offending, the court must sentence for the totality, not treat the sentence for one offence as a ceiling. Repeated offences against one complainant may properly be characterised as a campaign, particularly where offending continues over years and involves grooming, breach of trust and serious harm. The absence of force or previous relevant convictions does not prevent that characterisation. The sentence must remain just and proportionate, but a very substantial sentence will not be manifestly excessive where it reflects the number, duration, aggravating features and continuing lack of remorse.

The appellant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Minshull St, Manchester, on six counts of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offending involved at least 13 rapes over six to seven years. On 13 May 2024, the Crown Court imposed a 27-year custodial term and a one-year additional licence period pursuant to section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant relied on the fact that there was one complainant, no force or threats, and no previous relevant offending. The central issue was whether the sentence properly reflected the totality of the offending and its characterisation as a campaign of rape.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 27-year custodial sentence was severe but was not manifestly excessive.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to characterise the offending as a campaign of rape against a young child. The offending consisted of more than 13 rapes over an extended period, beginning when the complainant was aged six or seven and continuing until she was 12. The grooming, breach of trust, ejaculation, lack of contraception and resulting pregnancy were serious aggravating features. The absence of force or threats did not materially reduce the gravity of the offending.
3. The relevant sentencing framework gave a single Category 2A offence a starting point of 13 years’ custody, with a range of 11 to 17 years. That was not a ceiling for sentencing on the totality of multiple offences. The appellant was being sentenced for at least 13 separate rapes, each of which justified a substantial sentence before the aggravating features were considered.
4. The principle of totality required a sentence that was just and proportionate to the whole of the offending. In assessing proportionality, the court was entitled to take account of the number and duration of the offences, the campaign nature of the abuse, the pregnancy and termination, the appellant’s continuing denial and lack of remorse, and the absence of meaningful mitigation.
5. The fact that there was a single complainant and no previous relevant offending did not make the sentence disproportionate. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence, holding that the 27-year custodial term was not manifestly excessive: [2025] EWCA Crim 463.
• Crown Court at Minshull St, Manchester: following conviction after trial, imposed a 27-year custodial term and a one-year additional licence period on 13 May 2024.