R v Lancelot Stuber

When sentencing for multiple offences, the court must apply totality. The sentence must be lower than the aggregate of separate sentences where the offences are dealt with together, but any uplift must still reflect the seriousness of the additional offending. The court should identify the appropriate sentence for the lead offence, consider the relative seriousness and circumstances of the other offences, and then make a proportionate totality adjustment. Factors already reflected in the guideline category or culpability assessment must not be double counted. A sentence may be manifestly excessive where insufficient regard is given to totality, even though the additional offences properly warrant an uplift.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Wood Green, the appellant was convicted of rape of a child and eight other sexual offences committed against the complainant during her childhood. The offences included historical indecent assaults and offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The trial judge imposed a special custodial sentence of 21 years under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 20 years’ custody and an extended licence of one year, with the sentences for the other offences concurrent.

The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the total sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was the proper uplift from the lead offence to reflect the remaining offences while observing the principle of totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient regard had been given to totality when the other offences were brought into account. The appropriate sentence was a special custodial sentence of 19 years, comprising 18 years’ imprisonment and an extended licence period of one year. The other sentences remained concurrent and unamended.
2. The court approved the approach of treating count 10, rape of a child under 13, as the lead offence. Its category 2A classification was not challenged. The court assessed the standalone sentence by considering the guideline starting point, the aggravating factor of attempting to deter reporting, the partial rather than full penetration, and the need to avoid double counting grooming behaviour and abuse of trust already reflected in culpability A.
3. The remaining offences were less serious than counts 9 and 10, but they warranted a further uplift. Relevant considerations included their number, duration, the complainant’s age, their occurrence in her home, and their guideline starting points. The court also recognised that the offending did not involve repeated vaginal touching and that the touching was over clothing.
4. Totality required a lower sentence than would have resulted from imposing separate standalone sentences for each offence. That principle did not eliminate the need for an uplift reflecting the seriousness of the additional offences. The comparison with Attorney General’s Reference (R v RGX) [2023] EWCA Crim 1679 disclosed no general sentencing principle, because each sentence was fact-specific.
5. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2026] EWCA Crim 115: the appeal against sentence was allowed and the special custodial sentence was reduced from 21 years to 19 years.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — the appellant was convicted on 10 May 2024 and sentenced on 13 September 2024 to a special custodial sentence of 21 years.