R v Jack Westlake

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Leave is exceptional and the Court retains discretion whether to increase the sentence. When sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child, the Children guideline and the child-specific guideline remain relevant. The starting point is the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time. Later events may increase culpability or harm, but a more severe sentence requires good reason. Totality must reflect all offending and victims. Persistent sexual offending despite warnings and protective orders, continued denial and uncertain rehabilitation may require an extended sentence. The nine-year determinate sentence was replaced by a 16-year extended sentence.

This was a reference by the Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against sentences imposed on Jack Westlake by the Crown Court at Plymouth. Following two trials, he had been convicted of 14 offences involving five young victims, including rape, assault by penetration, sexual activity with a child, breaches of a sexual risk order and failures to comply with notification requirements.

Most of the serious offending occurred when he was aged 16 or 17. Further offending occurred when he was aged 20, while on bail and subject to a sexual risk order. The Crown Court imposed an aggregate determinate sentence of nine years. The central questions were whether that sentence sufficiently reflected the seriousness and totality of the offending, and whether the offender’s risk required an extended sentence rather than a determinate sentence.

1. The Court granted leave and allowed the reference. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the first-instance judge is particularly well placed to weigh competing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the reasonable sentencing range. Leave is granted only in exceptional, non-borderline cases involving gross error, although the Court retains discretion whether to increase the sentence even after finding undue leniency (paras [45]-[46]).
2. For an adult sentenced for offences committed as a child, the principles in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 applied. The Children guideline and child-specific sexual offences guideline had to be considered. The starting point was the sentence likely to have been imposed shortly after the offending. Later events could demonstrate greater culpability or harm, but a more severe adult sentence required good reason. The judge had correctly categorised the offences and applied the appropriate reduction from adult equivalents. The individual sentences for the two rapes were proper (paras [47]-[49], [53]).
3. The usual approach that later adult offending will be the lead offending was not applicable because the gravest offences had been committed while the respondent was a child. Nevertheless, the later rape committed shortly before adulthood, following arrest for an earlier rape, and the subsequent offending at age 20 in breach of a protective order increased the culpability and significance of the earlier offending. The aggregate nine-year sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending against five victims (paras [51]-[55]).
4. The finding of dangerousness was inevitable. Persistent offending despite warnings, arrest, bail and a sexual risk order, together with continued denial of responsibility and uncertainty about effective rehabilitation, meant that a lengthy determinate sentence did not provide sufficient protection. An extended licence was required as an additional protective measure (paras [55]-[57]).
5. The sentence on count 9 was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of 16 years, comprising 11 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence. The three-and-a-half-year sentence on count 3 was retained but made concurrent. The remaining sentences and orders were unchanged (para [58]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the reference reported at [2026] EWCA Crim 471, leave was granted. The sentence on count 9 was quashed and replaced with a 16-year extended sentence; the sentence on count 3 was made concurrent.
• Crown Court at Plymouth: After convictions at trials on 16 May and 13 October 2025, the respondent was sentenced on 28 November 2025, with a slip-rule hearing on 22 January 2026, to an aggregate determinate sentence of nine years.