R v Joshua Fletcher

On a sentence appeal by a very young offender, the Court of Appeal held that a sentencing judge may make findings about planning and the use of drugs to facilitate offending where those findings do not determine criminal liability and are supported by the evidence as a whole. Previous sexual violence against the same victim may independently amount to a high culpability factor. The guideline reduction for offenders under 18 is a rough guide, not a tariff. The court must assess chronological age alongside emotional and developmental maturity, personal characteristics and vulnerabilities. The sentence must be assessed holistically. A limited reduction in culpability, combined with the particular impact of custody, may nevertheless justify a substantial reduction from the sentence appropriate for an older offender. The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The appellant, aged 18 at conviction and sentence, had been convicted at the Crown Court at Warwick of sexual assault and rape against one complainant and four rapes against another complainant. He received an extended sentence of 18 years, comprising 13 years’ custody and an extended licence period of five years.

Leave to appeal was granted on two grounds: whether the sentencing judge could find that cannabis had been used deliberately to facilitate rapes committed while the second complainant slept, and whether the appellant’s age, immaturity, mental health difficulties and other vulnerabilities required a greater reduction in the custodial term. The appellant did not challenge the dangerousness finding or the licence period. The central issues were the permissible sentencing findings and the proper approach to age-related mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the evidence as a whole when deciding whether the appellant had used cannabis to facilitate the offending. The precise intention behind the cannabis use was not part of the liability issue on which the jury had decided counts 4, 5 and 6. It was therefore open in principle to the judge to determine that issue for sentencing purposes. The evidence provided a sufficient basis for the finding, despite some doubt about how effective the cannabis had ultimately been. The vulnerability of a complainant in a cannabis-induced deep sleep supported category 2 harm whether or not the cannabis had been deliberately used to produce that state. The intention to use drugs to facilitate the offending was relevant to culpability. Previous sexual violence against the same victim independently supported category A culpability.
3. The judge was entitled to sentence the appellant by reference to the adult sexual-offence guideline, while treating him as a very young adult and taking account of his age, immaturity and vulnerabilities. The guidance for offenders aged 15 to 17, including the broad half-to-two-thirds indication, was not to be applied mechanically. Chronological age had to be considered together with emotional and developmental age and maturity. Depending on the individual case, those matters could justify a smaller reduction, no reduction, or a reduction greater than the broad guideline indication.
4. The assessment of mitigation was properly divided between culpability and the impact of custody. The judge concluded, on the evidence and with the benefit of having seen the appellant give evidence at trial, that the appellant’s immaturity did not significantly reduce his culpability. He nevertheless took age and vulnerability into account when assessing the custodial term. The Court considered that an older offender would have merited a custodial term of at least 18 years, so the 13-year term represented an allowance of at least 28 per cent. The sentence was the result of a careful, holistic and non-mechanistic assessment of the totality of the offending.

• Crown Court at Warwick: the appellant was convicted on 26 February 2025 and sentenced on 15 April 2025 to an extended sentence of 18 years, comprising 13 years’ custody and an extended licence period of five years.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the sentence appeal was dismissed. [2026] EWCA Crim 252