R v V.F.T.

In sentencing repeated child rape, the court must assess culpability and harm under the applicable sentencing guideline, while avoiding double counting of aggravating features. Separate sentences for separate victims may properly be consecutive where that reflects distinct offending. The total sentence must then be reviewed for totality so that it is just and proportionate to the indictment as a whole. Delay caused or materially prolonged by the offender’s threats and instructions to keep the offending secret ordinarily provides no substantial mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Canterbury to four counts of rape committed against two of his daughters when they were young children. He received a special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern comprising 20 years’ custody and two years on licence. The sentencing judge treated each offence as at least category A2, imposed consecutive sentences for the offending against each victim, and allowed four years for mitigation and totality before giving one-third credit for the guilty pleas.

With leave to appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because the sentences after trial were too long and the allowance for mitigation and totality was insufficient. The central issue was whether the final sentence properly reflected the overall offending and the principle of totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentences on counts 2 and 4 were quashed. The appellant was re-sentenced under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to consecutive special custodial sentences of 9½ years on each count, comprising 8½ years’ custody and one year on licence. The total sentence was 19 years, comprising 17 years’ custody and two years on licence.

2. Each rape was at least category A2 under the applicable guideline. Culpability was category A because the offending involved a gross breach of trust and grooming. Harm was category 2 because the victims were extremely young and particularly vulnerable, the offences occurred in their home, and they suffered severe psychological harm. The aggravating features were properly identified, but the victims’ youth and vulnerability could not be double counted.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess 17 years’ imprisonment as appropriate for the offending against each victim and to impose consecutive sentences because there were two separate victims. The gravity and persistence of the offending required a total sentence after trial well in excess of 20 years.

4. The error occurred at the final totality stage. The judge’s 30-year sentence after trial reduced the aggregate sentences by only four years and was also intended to cover mitigation. Insufficient regard had therefore been paid to ensuring that the sentence for the indictment as a whole was just and proportionate. The appropriate sentence after trial was 26 years, reduced to a 17-year custodial term after credit for the guilty pleas.

5. Delay did not provide substantial mitigation. That conclusion was reinforced by the appellant’s own threats and instructions to keep the offending secret, which were designed to and did significantly delay prosecution. Previous good character provided little mitigation, although the subsequent fostering of children without further offending was a particular feature of the case.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 2 May 2025, HHJ James imposed a special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern of 22 years, comprising 20 years’ custody and two years on licence.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences on counts 2 and 4 were quashed and the appellant was re-sentenced to a total of 19 years, comprising 17 years’ custody and two years on licence.