R v M

On a reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, sentencing guidelines must be followed, but the decisive exercise is the final global assessment of proportionality for all the offending. In cases involving multiple victims, the judge should either increase the lead sentence expressly to reflect offending against the other victims or order their sentences to run consecutively, subject to totality. A mistake in categorisation or presentation does not itself establish undue leniency if the final sentence is proportionate. A very young victim within the relevant guideline cohort may be particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient. The reference was dismissed and the 14-year sentence remained unchanged.

Following convictions after trial and guilty pleas, the offender was sentenced by His Honour Judge Singh at the Crown Court at Grimsby on 19 December 2024 to 14 years’ imprisonment for 18 serious sexual offences against two sisters aged 11 and 13.

HM Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the rape offences against the older victim had been placed in the wrong guideline category and that the sentence insufficiently reflected the offending against the second victim. The central issue was whether, despite errors in categorisation and totality, the sentence was unduly lenient.

Disposition. Leave to refer was granted, but the Reference was dismissed. The sentences, including the total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment, remained unaltered.

1. The sentencing judge had erred in treating the older victim’s age as merely an aggravating feature within the guideline range. She was 13 and at the youngest end of the relevant guideline cohort. In that context, her age was a particular vulnerability due to personal circumstances. The word particularly should not be given the narrow meaning adopted by the sentencing judge. The court relied on and applied the approach in R v Saunders [2022] EWCA Crim 264, where the relevant circumstances were not limited to enduring characteristics.

2. In a case involving multiple victims, the sentencing court should either make clear that the sentence on the lead offence has been increased to reflect offending against other victims, or order the sentences for those victims to run consecutively. Consecutive sentences are appropriate in such cases, although totality must be considered so that the overall sentence does not become inappropriately short. The judge’s approach gave the second victim no effective punishment because the lead sentence did not reflect her offending and the sentences for it ran concurrently.

3. The guidelines and their categorisation steps remain important, but in a case involving multiple offences and victims the most important stage is the final assessment of a proportionate sentence for all the criminality. An error in the construction or expression of the sentence does not make it unduly lenient if the final global sentence passes that proportionality test.

4. The sentence was lenient and many judges might have imposed a longer term. It was not, however, so much shorter than the appropriate sentence as to be unduly lenient. The statutory threshold for intervention on the Reference was therefore not met.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but the Reference was dismissed and the 14-year sentence was confirmed.
• Crown Court at Grimsby: His Honour Judge Singh sentenced the offender on 19 December 2024 to 14 years’ imprisonment for 18 serious sexual offences against two children.