R v Nathan John

When sentencing an offender aged 15 to 17 for serious sexual offending, the adult guideline is a reference point only. The suggested reduction to roughly half to two thirds is a rough guide and must not be applied mechanically. The court must assess chronological age alongside emotional and developmental age and maturity. A limited reduction may be justified where the nature and extent of the offending, repeat offending and risk to the public are grave. Totality may be respected through concurrent sentences and calibration of the overall custodial term. An appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge addressed those matters, made no error of principle and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Following a five-day jury trial at Swansea Crown Court, the applicant, then aged 19, was convicted of multiple sexual offences, including three rapes involving two 16-year-old complainants. He was aged 17 years and 9 months when he committed the first group of offences and was on police bail when he committed the second rape. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent extended sentences for the three rapes, comprising a 16-year custodial term and a four-year extended licence, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

Leave to appeal was refused by a single judge. The renewed application challenged the weight given to age and maturity and contended that totality required a shorter custodial term with a longer extension period.

The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The grounds were not arguable.

1. Age, maturity and the adult guideline. There was no challenge to the categorisation of the lead offences, the aggravating factors or the limited mitigation for previous good character. The sentencing judge had properly considered the Sentencing Council guideline for children and young persons, including the guidance that a reduction from the adult sentence for offenders aged 15 to 17 was only a rough guide and was not to be applied mechanically. Emotional and developmental age and maturity were at least as important as chronological age.
2. Case-specific reduction. The judge made an allowance for the applicant’s age and maturity. He was entitled to draw parallels with the reasoning in R v Asi-Akram [2005] EWCA Crim 1543, where youth was relevant but did not require an invariable significant reduction. The seriousness and extent of the offending, the repeat rape committed 17 months later and the risk posed to young women justified the limited reduction. The judge had also seen the applicant during the trial and was well placed to assess his maturity and the appropriate reduction.
3. Totality and appellate review. The judge properly addressed totality by treating the rape offences as the lead offences, imposing concurrent sentences for the other offences and calibrating the overall custodial term. The possibility that a consecutive sentence might have been imposed for one count did not establish an error of principle. Given the very serious repeat offending, the sentence was not arguably or manifestly excessive. The sentence therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 26 March 2026, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and upheld the sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 486.
• Crown Court at Swansea — The applicant was convicted on 18 October 2024 and sentenced on 18 November 2024 by HHJ Huw Rees to concurrent extended sentences comprising 16 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence for three rapes, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.