R v Ibrahima Krubally

A sentencing judge may place serious sexual offending in culpability category A where the evidence supports a significant degree of planning, including a joint plan to lure victims to premises on a false pretext and commit sexual intercourse irrespective of consent. A young adult outside the children and young people guideline remains entitled to age mitigation. However, age and good character do not require a sentence below the level justified by multiple offences, sustained offending and aggravating features. Appellate intervention is unwarranted where the sentencing findings were open on the evidence and the resulting sentence, after mitigation, was not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Leeds, the appellant was convicted of three rapes and one offence of assault by penetration. He was aged 18 years and 11 months when the offences were committed, aged 21 at sentence, and had no previous convictions. The offences attracted concurrent sentences totalling 12 years’ imprisonment.

With permission, he appealed against sentence. He argued that the offences should have been placed in culpability category B and that insufficient account had been taken of his age and previous good character.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in culpability category A. He had heard the evidence and was satisfied that both offenders had participated in a plan to lure the victims to an address on the false pretext of an after-party. The premises had been secured for their purposes, and the appellant was party to an enterprise involving sexual intercourse whether or not it was wanted. Those findings supported a significant degree of planning and justified rejecting the possibility that the offenders had independently decided to rape at the flat.

2. The appellant’s age was relevant mitigation even though he fell outside the direct scope of the sentencing guideline for children and young people. The court found no basis for treating him as less than average in maturity for someone aged 18 years and 11 months. Nevertheless, his young age remained a material consideration, as did his previous good character.

3. The starting point for each rape was 10 years’ imprisonment. The sentence was capable of being increased because there were three rapes, including oral rape, an additional offence of assault by penetration, and aggravating features including the failure to use a condom. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to arrive at a figure exceeding 12 years before allowing reductions for age and good character. The final concurrent sentence of 12 years showed that sufficient account had been taken of age. A fully mature adult offender would have received a longer sentence. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied to the complainants.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 4 July 2025, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. [2025] EWCA Crim 989
2. Crown Court at Leeds: Following trial, the appellant was convicted of three rapes and one assault by penetration and sentenced to concurrent terms totalling 12 years’ imprisonment.