R v Adam Cruise

When sentencing multiple serious sexual offences against more than one victim, the totality principle requires the sentence to reflect each distinct group of offending. Concurrent sentences may be imposed, but the sentencing judge must make a significant uplift where offences were committed on separate occasions, were of a different kind and involved a different victim. Focusing on lead offences and simply making all sentences concurrent can produce an unduly lenient sentence. Personal mitigation, including positive good character, may carry extremely limited or no weight for offences of this seriousness. The court substituted a total sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment.

Following conviction at the Crown Court at Birmingham, Mr Cruise received a total concurrent sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment for nine sexual offences against two child victims. The offences comprised assaults by penetration, sexual assaults and rapes. The Solicitor General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issues were whether the sentence adequately reflected the separate offending against both victims under the totality principle, and whether the sentencing judge’s failure to address dangerousness contributed to undue leniency.

The court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference, holding that the total sentence of 13 years was unduly lenient.

1. In relation to V2, the appropriate sentence considered in isolation was at least 13 years. That reflected the starting point for a single rape, the aggravating features and the multiple offending on five counts. Personal mitigation carried extremely limited weight. Positive good character could not afford mitigation for offences of this seriousness.
2. The Recorder had focused on the rape offences and had lost sight of the four separate offences against V1. Those offences involved a particularly young child, occurred on separate occasions and had a starting point of 11 years for a single offence. Considered alone, they warranted at least 11 years’ custody.
3. The totality principle required the court to respect proportionality while recognising that the offending against V1 was separate offending, of a different kind and against a different victim. A very significant uplift was therefore required. The appropriate sentence for all the offending, viewed in the round, was at least 18 years’ custody.
4. The court did not consider dangerousness because, given the length of the sentence required, an extended licence period was not justified.
5. The sentences on counts 7, 8 and 9 were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 18 years’ imprisonment. The sentences on counts 1 to 4 were quashed and replaced with concurrent 12-year sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 11 years’ custody and one year’s extended licence. The remaining sentences were undisturbed. The total sentence became 18 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave, found the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted sentences producing a total of 18 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: Following conviction at trial, imposed a total concurrent sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment on 25 November 2025.