R v YHW

For a prolonged campaign of sexual offending which begins while the offender is under 18 but continues into adulthood, the sentencing court may use a serious adult offence as the lead offence where it properly represents the overall criminality. Youth must still be reflected in sentences for offences committed while under 18. Duration, persistence, psychological harm and breach of trust may justify a very lengthy custodial sentence, including a term exceeding 20 years where the guidelines contemplate that outcome.

An offender-of-particular-concern sentence is lawful only where the statutory requirements are met. An offence outside Schedule 13 cannot support the additional licence period, and the statutory restriction for offences committed while under 18 must also be respected. An extended sentence was not required on the facts.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Luton of a prolonged campaign of sexual offences against his younger brother, committed both before and after he reached 18. The sentencing judge treated an adult rape count as the lead offence and imposed an overall sentence of 22 years, including a one-year licence period imposed on the basis that the applicant was an offender of particular concern.

On appeal, the applicant argued that a juvenile offence should have been the lead offence and that the aggregate sentence was excessive. The Crown also invited consideration of an extended sentence. The central issues were the lawfulness of the offender-of-particular-concern sentence, the proper approach to structuring the sentence, totality, and whether an extended sentence was necessary.

Appeal allowed in part. Permission to appeal was granted. The sentence of 22 years was quashed and replaced by a determinate sentence of 21 years, with the other sentences remaining concurrent.

1. The additional licence period was unlawful. The offence represented by count 7 was not included in Schedule 13 to the Sentencing Act 2020, so section 278(1) could not support an offender-of-particular-concern sentence for that offence. Count 2 was listed in Schedule 13, but section 278(2) prevented such a sentence because the applicant was under 18 when that offence was committed.
2. The judge was entitled to use count 7, an adult offence, as the lead offence. The offending had begun when the applicant was 15, but continued for a substantial period after he became an adult. A significant number of serious adult offences, including a campaign of rape, formed part of the overall criminality.
3. The individual sentences fell within the applicable guideline ranges. The judge had properly reflected the applicant’s youth in the sentences for counts committed before he was 18. The prolonged campaign, very significant psychological harm, grotesque breach of trust and the need to reflect totality justified a very lengthy custodial sentence. The aggregate sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
4. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 militated against imposing an extended sentence as the response to this appeal. In any event, an extended sentence was unnecessary, given the lengthy custodial term, the unusual context of the offending and the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 23 June 2026, the application for permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed to the extent that the 22-year sentence was quashed and replaced with a 21-year determinate sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 871.
• Crown Court at Luton: The applicant was convicted on 25 April 2025 and sentenced on 24 June 2025 to an overall term of 22 years.