R v WFU

In sentencing for multiple sexual offences, the totality principle requires the overall sentence to reflect all offending by reference to harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and personal factors, while remaining just and proportionate. Where offences were committed at ages 16 to 18 but sentence was imposed in adulthood, youth, immaturity and vulnerability may require a substantial reduction from the adult starting point. That reduction must still leave serious additional offending properly reflected. A sentence barely above the adult starting point for one grave offence was not manifestly excessive where it represented a modest uplift for an extended course of serious offending. An unlawful concurrent sentence may exceptionally be replaced with no separate penalty where a lawful concurrent sentence would serve no practical purpose.

On 20 December 2024, the appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of nine sexual offences against his younger cousin, committed when he was aged between 16 and 18 and she was aged between 10 and 12. The lead count concerned sexual intercourse with a girl under 13. The court imposed a special custodial sentence of 12 years, comprising 11 years’ custody and a one-year licence period, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence, relying on his age, maturity, vulnerabilities, autistic spectrum disorder, the historic nature of the offending and the passage of time. The central issue was whether the sentence representing the totality of the offending was manifestly excessive. The legality of the sentence imposed on one count was also considered.

Disposition and sentencing principles

1. The appeal against the sentence as manifestly excessive was dismissed. The sentence on Count 3 was unlawful and was quashed. No separate penalty was substituted on that count.
2. The sentencing judge’s remarks were a model of their kind. He had considered the relevant statutory framework, sentencing guidelines and authorities, including R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 and R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185. He properly treated the appellant’s autistic spectrum disorder as mitigation without reducing culpability, and took account of his age, lower maturity and vulnerabilities at the time of the offending.
3. The lead offence fell within Category 2B of the Sexual Offences Guideline. The adult starting point for a single offence was 10 years’ custody, with a range of eight to 13 years. Applying the principle in R v Clarke, the sentence required downward adjustment for the appellant’s age and maturity. However, the additional serious sexual offences, including those committed when he was a youth, required a substantial increase to reflect the totality of the offending. The increase made was modest in context.
4. The overriding totality principle requires an overall sentence for multiple offences to reflect the total offending by reference to overall harm and culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and personal factors, while remaining just and proportionate. The sentence satisfied that principle and was not manifestly excessive.
5. Count 3 had been committed when the appellant was 16. The maximum available sentence was a 24-month detention and training order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The four-year sentence was therefore unlawful. A concurrent detention and training order would serve no practical purpose given the overall sentence, so the exceptional course of imposing no separate penalty was appropriate.

• Birmingham Crown Court: On 20 December 2024, the appellant was convicted on nine sexual-offence counts and sentenced to a 12-year special custodial sentence on the lead count, comprising 11 years’ custody and a one-year licence period, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The unlawful sentence on Count 3 was quashed and no separate penalty was substituted. Judgment given under [2026] EWCA Crim 286.