R v Shackeel Blanie

For category 2 harm under the Definitive Guideline for rape, severe psychological harm must be substantially greater than harm inherent in rape generally. Expert evidence is not required. Severity may be assessed from the victim’s evidence, the victim personal statement in context, evidence of immediate reactions and the judge’s own observations. The trial judge’s factual assessment is entitled to appellate respect. Acquitted allegations may be considered as part of the narrative and in assessing culpability and harm, provided the sentence is imposed only for conduct proved. As the offence becomes more serious, less weight attaches to positive personal mitigation. The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Inner London of rape, battery and strangulation arising from one incident. He was acquitted of three other rape allegations and a sexual assault allegation. He received a sentence of eight years and six months for rape, with concurrent sentences for battery and strangulation. He obtained leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that the rape should have been placed in category 3B rather than category 2B because the psychological harm was not severe, the judge had relied on acquitted conduct, and insufficient weight had been given to mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the rape as category 2B on the basis of severe psychological harm.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

1. The relevant issue was whether the rape had been wrongly placed in category 2B rather than category 3B solely because of severe psychological harm. The judge correctly directed himself that severe psychological harm must be substantially greater than the harm inherent in rape generally. The court noted R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 and R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865. Expert evidence is not a precondition. The sentencing judge may rely on the victim’s evidence, the victim personal statement viewed in context, evidence of witnesses about the victim’s immediate reactions and the judge’s own observations.
2. The trial judge was well placed to assess the seriousness of the psychological harm. The Court of Appeal would not interfere without a basis for concluding that the assessment was wrong. The judge had distinguished the acquitted allegations and assessed the psychological impact of the convicted rape in the context of the conduct of which the jury was sure. He had not attributed the impact to the whole of the sexual activity, including acquitted conduct.
3. Severe psychological harm was sufficient to place the rape in category 2B. The judge was entitled to conclude that the offence was not category 2 because it was prolonged or sustained or because the victim was particularly vulnerable, and to treat humiliation, degradation and violence as aggravating factors. The rape remained at the category 2B starting point of eight years.
4. The judge had properly evaluated personal mitigation. Under the rape guidelines, the more serious the offence, the less weight can be attached to positive personal mitigation. The sentence for strangulation and the six-month uplift for that aggravating feature were also unobjectionable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2026] EWCA Crim 1229 : leave having been granted, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Inner London: the appellant was convicted of rape, battery and strangulation, acquitted of the remaining counts, and sentenced to eight years and six months for rape with concurrent sentences for battery and strangulation.