R v Edward Harris

Where later-discovered offending is sentenced after an earlier sentence for related offending, the court may identify the overall sentence that would have been imposed if all offences had been sentenced together. The court must assess the aggregate offending and allow for totality, rather than simply adding a sentence for the later offences to the earlier sentence. Guilty-plea credit must still be applied. This approach may give less prominence to the absence of recent reoffending. Sustained sexual offending against several victims over an extended period may properly be treated as a campaign of rape.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Canterbury to eleven sexual offences committed against a child under 13 between 2004 and 2011, including rape, sexual assaults and offences involving sexual activity. He had previously been convicted and sentenced in 2014 for fourteen sexual offences against two other family members, receiving an overall sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge treated the current and earlier offending as if it had been sentenced together for totality purposes. He assessed the notional overall sentence at 22 years and imposed ten years’ imprisonment after taking the earlier sentence into account. The appeal concerned the assessment of the notional overall sentence, totality, the absence of recent reoffending and guilty-plea credit.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to identify the overall sentence that would have been imposed had the appellant been sentenced at the same time for offending against all three victims. That approach was consistent with totality. It avoided treating the 2014 convictions as relevant previous convictions, which would have been seriously aggravating given the similarity of the offending. Its adoption also meant that less prominence was given to the absence of recent reoffending after release.
3. The court rejected the submission that the judge had simply added the sentences for the current offences to the earlier 12-year sentence. The judge had assessed the aggregate offending and made a substantial allowance for totality. The rape offence had a starting point of 13 years’ custody. Taken with the aggravating features and the remaining counts, the current offending viewed alone would have attracted a pre-credit figure of about 16 to 17 years. The judge’s pre-credit figure of 11 years and two months therefore reflected a substantial reduction for totality.
4. The judge had correctly reduced the sentence by ten per cent to reflect the appellant’s guilty pleas.
5. The sustained offending against three victims over a 12-year period could properly be treated as a campaign of rape. The judge was entitled to regard an overall sentence of 22 years as just and proportionate. The grounds of appeal were not well-founded, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 29 May 2025, the appellant was sentenced to a Special Custodial Sentence comprising ten years’ custody and a further one-year licence period for the rape, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was held not to be manifestly excessive.