R v Scott Chapman

On an Attorney-General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, intervention is exceptional. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the first-instance judge. The jurisdiction addresses gross error, not borderline disagreement. Concurrent sentences with a lead offence are permissible, but the total sentence must be just and proportionate and reflect the overall gravity of the offending. Guideline starting points should be adjusted for aggravating factors and multiple offending before mitigation and guilty-plea credit. Youth or immaturity may justify significant mitigation, but cannot reduce the sentence so far that the gravity of the offending is lost.

This was an Attorney-General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Worcester. The respondent, aged 20 at the time, pleaded guilty to rape, sexual activity with a child and sexual communication with a child. The rape sentence was four years and three months, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had given excessive weight to immaturity and thereby produced an unduly lenient sentence, having regard to the guideline categories, aggravating features, totality and guilty-plea credit.

The Court granted leave to refer the sentences and found them unduly lenient.

1. The principles governing a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 were summarised by reference to Attorney-General’s Reference (Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751. The first-instance judge is particularly well placed to assess competing sentencing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range reasonably considered appropriate. Leave should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, not borderline cases, and the jurisdiction is directed to gross error. The court also relied on the purposes identified in Attorney-General’s Reference No 132 of 2001 (Bryn Dorian Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418.
2. It was proper to make the rape count the lead offence and to make the other sentences concurrent, provided that the resulting sentence was just and proportionate and reflected the overall gravity of the offending.
3. For a mature adult, the rape starting point of eight years required an upward adjustment to nine years, particularly because of grooming. The other offences warranted a notional sentence of six years because of aggravating features and multiple offending. Applying totality required an appreciable increase in the rape sentence, producing a notional total of 12 years rather than simple addition.
4. The respondent’s immaturity justified a reduction from 12 years to eight years. After the agreed 15 per cent credit for the guilty pleas, the appropriate sentence on count 1 was six years and eight months. The sentence on the remaining counts remained concurrent and unchanged. The original sentence was quashed and the six-year-eight-month sentence substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted. The sentence on count 1 was quashed and six years and eight months’ custody substituted; the other concurrent sentences were unchanged.
• Crown Court at Worcester: The respondent was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment for rape, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.