REGINA v C [2022] EWCA Crim 614

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2022] EWCA Crim 614
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday 28 April 2022
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
LADY JUSTICE MACUR DBEMR JUSTICE TURNERMR JUSTICE EYREREGINACrownVC__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MS P BRIAN appeared for Appellant._________J U D G M E N T
[1]"Offences may be of such severity, for example involving a campaign of rape, that sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate." It is to be noted that the reference to a campaign of rape is merely as an example of the sort of case of such severity as may attract a sentence of 20 years or above. It is thus unnecessary to consider whether or not a case of this kind is properly described as involving a campaign of rape. Perhaps rather than a campaign, this can simply be described as a case of 'repeat, very serious offending against a young victim of sufficient severity in itself to justify the imposition of a sentence longer than that which would normally fall within the range of sentences appropriate for a single offence'. We take the view that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that the course of the appellant's conduct was such as to fall comfortably into such a category. Nevertheless the issue of totality still falls to be considered. Although the sentence of 25 years was undoubtedly somewhat lower than the total would have been reached by simply adding the appropriate sentence for each individual offence together, we are satisfied that, despite the seriously aggravating features, the term exceeded that which was just and proportionate in all the circumstances. We therefore reduce the sentence to one of 21 years’ imprisonment. To that limited extent we allow this appeal. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS

[2]Tel No: 020 7404 1400[3]Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk