R v Derek Johnson

For an Attorney General’s 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. Borderline cases do not qualify. Totality requires multiple offences to be reflected by reference to overall harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and proportionality. Offences against the same victim may be sentenced concurrently, while sentences for separate victims should be consecutive, subject to a further totality adjustment. Where an offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to future victims, an extended licence remains appropriate. The sentence was increased to 19 years and six months’ imprisonment with a five-year extended licence.

The Solicitor General referred a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Gloucester on 24 November 2025 after the respondent pleaded guilty to sexual offences against three children. The sentencing judge imposed an overall sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment and a five-year extended licence, with five years’ custody attributed to each victim. The reference concerned whether the sentence properly reflected the number of offences and the separate victims while respecting totality. The respondent argued that the sentence was not unduly lenient and that any increase should prompt reconsideration of the extended licence.

1. The Court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. It held that the sentence imposed below was unduly lenient and increased the custodial terms on all counts from five years to six years and six months, preserving the existing concurrent and consecutive structure. The resulting sentence was 19 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a five-year extended licence. The sentence on count 1 was to be served last, and the ancillary orders remained unchanged.

2. Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the first-instance judge is particularly well placed to weigh competing sentencing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range which the judge could reasonably consider appropriate. Leave should not be granted in borderline cases, and the provision is directed to gross error. Even where undue leniency is established, the Court retains a discretion whether to exercise its power. That principle was reflected in Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) [1990] 1 WLR 41; [1990] 90 Cr App R 366, at p 371.

3. The totality principle requires the overall sentence to reflect all the offending behaviour by reference to overall harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the requirement of a just and proportionate sentence. In a case involving multiple offences against several victims, a lead sentence may be selected for each victim, with other offences against that victim sentenced concurrently. Sentences attributable to separate victims should be consecutive, followed by any adjustment required by totality.

4. Applying those principles, seven years’ imprisonment before credit was appropriate for a single offence against each victim. An uplift to seven years and six months was required to reflect the number of offences against each victim. A further one-year reduction in relation to the consecutive victim-based sentences produced six years and six months for each victim, giving the overall sentence of 19 years and six months.

5. The respondent remained dangerous because he posed a significant risk of causing serious harm to potential future victims. The increase in custody did not remove the need for the extended licence, which remained necessary for public protection under the extended sentence imposed pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 17 April 2026, the Court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentence unduly lenient, and increased it to 19 years and six months’ imprisonment with a five-year extended licence: [2026] EWCA Crim 549.
2. Crown Court at Gloucester — On 24 November 2025, the sentencing judge imposed an overall sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment with a five-year extended licence following guilty pleas to offences against three victims.