R v Antanas Jancevskis

Multiple category 2 harm factors may elevate a sexual offence to category 1 where their combined impact is extreme. Relevant consequences may include loss of career, home and country. A sustained incident requires the duration or persistence ordinarily indicated by that guideline factor; a single rape of relatively short duration may not qualify. A finding of significant degree of planning requires more than an opportunistic decision to go to the victim’s home. An appellate court may correct an overstated guideline categorisation even where the sentencing judge’s final balancing exercise was open to him.

The appellant was convicted of rape at the Crown Court at Leicester on 19 February 2025 and sentenced by HHJ Mooncey on 20 March 2025 to 15 years’ imprisonment. The judge categorised the offence as category 1A under the sentencing guideline, treating the harm as category 1 and culpability as category A because of significant planning.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the incident was not sustained, that the combination of harm factors did not justify category 1, and that the offence involved no significant planning. The central issues were the correct harm and culpability categories and the resulting sentence.

Disposition

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the 15-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment substituted.

1. Harm. The court accepted that the offence involved multiple category 2 factors: uninvited entry into the victim’s home, particular vulnerability caused by intoxication and sleep, and severe psychological harm. The victim’s improved circumstances at the time of appeal did not undermine the sentencing judge’s assessment of the continuing impact. Loss of her career, home and country were relevant consequences of the rape. The judge had been entitled to consider those matters when assessing psychological harm and had avoided double counting them as aggravating features.
2. Sustained incident. The guideline factor was expressed as prolonged detention or sustained incident. The offence lacked the duration or persistence normally indicated by that factor. The fact that the rape lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes did not make it a sustained incident for guideline purposes.
3. Category 1 harm. Despite excluding the sustained-incident factor, the court agreed that the combination of the remaining factors and their impact on the victim’s life justified category 1 harm.
4. Culpability. There was no evidence that the appellant left the barbecue intending to assault the victim. Changing direction after going to obtain alcohol and finding an open window did not readily amount to significant planning. Category A culpability was therefore inappropriate. The correct categorisation was category 1B, with a 12-year starting point and a range of 10 to 15 years.
5. The sentencing judge’s view that aggravating and mitigating features cancelled each other out was generous, but one he was entitled to reach. The resulting sentence was therefore 12 years.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 244, the court allowed the sentence appeal to the stated extent, quashed the 15-year sentence and substituted 12 years.
2. Crown Court at Leicester — The appellant was convicted of rape on 19 February 2025 and sentenced on 20 March 2025 by HHJ Mooncey to 15 years’ imprisonment.