R v Kieran Mullen

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence may be increased only if it is unduly lenient, meaning that it falls outside the range a judge applying all relevant factors could reasonably consider appropriate. Even then, the court retains a discretion whether to intervene. Sentencing guideline categories are not rigid compartments. Starting points and ranges must be adjusted for multiple offences and the totality principle. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate for separate sets of serious offending, but the aggregate sentence must remain just and proportionate. The reference was allowed and the total sentence increased from 11 to 13 years.

The respondent was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of three rapes committed against one victim in 2013, and one rape and one sexual assault committed against a second victim in 2020. On 3 October 2025, HHJ Godfrey imposed a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment. The Solicitor General referred the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, alleging undue leniency. The central issues were whether the reductions applied to the rape sentences were excessive and whether the totality adjustment produced a sentence outside the reasonable range.

The Court granted leave to refer the sentences and allowed the reference.

1. Statutory threshold. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court may increase a sentence only if it is unduly lenient. That means a sentence outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. Even where that threshold is met, the court retains a discretion whether to exercise its power. The court relied on the principles stated by Lord Lane CJ in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) (1990) 90 Cr App R 366.
2. Guideline and totality. The sentencing guideline’s categories are not rigid pigeonholes. Adjustments may be required for particular features of harm or culpability, including multiple factors. The category 2B starting point of eight years, with a range of seven to nine years, applied to a single offence. It did not determine the sentence for multiple offences.
3. Application. The sentencing judge was entitled to make the sentences for the two sets of offending consecutive and was right to stand back and assess totality. However, reducing the sentences for counts 2 and 3 below the category range, and then reducing them again to five years each, was excessive even after allowing for totality, youth and delay. A total sentence of 13 years was just and proportionate.
4. Orders. The sentences on counts 2, 3 and 4 were quashed. Six years was substituted on each of counts 2 and 3, concurrent, and seven years on count 4, consecutive. The sentences on counts 1 and 6 remained concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On the reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted, the sentences on counts 2, 3 and 4 were quashed, and a total sentence of 13 years was substituted: [2026] EWCA Crim 133.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — Following conviction, HHJ Godfrey imposed a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment on 3 October 2025.