R v Joshua Enodolomwanyi [2025] EWCA Crim 1295

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 is not to 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.

[2025] EWCA Crim 1295

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Between

R EXCrown

London

WC2A 2LL

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CHESTER

(MR RECORDER BRADSHAW) [07WZ1954923]

Case No 2024/03946/A3 Thursday 7 August 2025

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE LEWIS

MRS JUSTICE McGOWAN DBE

MR JUSTICE MORRIS

____________________

- v -

Between

JOSHUA ENODOLOMWANYI

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_____________________

Mr M Whitty appeared for Appellant

____________________

J U D G M E N T

Date 2025-08-07

[1]On 23 Mary 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Chester before Mr Recorder Bradshaw and a jury, the appellant, Joshua Enodolomwanyi, was convicted of an offence of attempted kidnapping. On 10 October 2024, he was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of nine years and six months, comprising a custodial term of five years and six months and an extended licence period of four years. The appellant now appeals against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

[2]The facts may be summarised as follows. On 30 November 2023, at around 7 pm, Ms Owoeye was walking to work at a care home, accompanied by three colleagues. The appellant was driving a car. He stopped and tried to talk to Ms Owoeye and to persuade her to get into his car. She refused. The appellant then drove off, turned his car around, returned and tried again. He grabbed her hands and clothing, and tried to force her into the car. He threatened to punch her. Fortunately, her colleagues were able to intervene and they called the police. The victim impact statement makes it clear, unsurprisingly, that Ms Owoeye was very frightened and seriously distressed by the attempt to kidnap her and to force her into the car. She could not work that night, or indeed for the next three days. She remained scared of going to work. She did not want to leave the house.

[3]The appellant was 52 years old at the time of the offence. He had no previous convictions. His wife, sadly, had died. He had four children. Two were adults and two were younger children who were in local authority foster care at the time of the offence. There was a pre-sentence report and an addendum report, in each of which the authors assessed the appellant as presenting a high risk of harm to the public, particularly females, through the commission of further offences.

[4]There was also a psychiatric report and the author of that report concluded that the appellant was exhibiting untreated psychotic symptoms at the time of the offence which were likely to have had an effect on his decision-making at the time. The appellant reported having heard voices telling him that Ms Owoeye was the lady he had been looking for and with whom he was to form a relationship. The voices did not tell him to kidnap her, or to cause her harm.

[5]The Recorder's sentencing remarks are detailed and thorough. He indicated that he had taken all the relevant guidelines then in force into account. He referred to the relevant case law. He noted the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence of kidnapping. He reminded himself that a close examination of the facts and circumstances was required. Against that background, he noted that the offence involved an attempt, not a completed offence. He noted that some force was used, namely grabbing the victim, but that greater violence was threatened as the appellant had threatened to punch the victim if she did not get into the car. He said that the incident lasted between five and ten minutes, rather than hours, which, given that it was an attempt, was not surprising.

The Recorder said this:

"The circumstances of this offence, in my judgment, are particularly troubling in that you tried essentially to pull someone from the street into your car who was innocently walking to work. Your indication that you knew where the victim worked, whether true or not, acted to further scare the victim, but I consider, having heard the evidence and being in the position of having been able to hear the evidence in this case, that you intended to cause serious sexual harm when you had got the victim into the car. I do not accept your indication that you wanted just to spend time with her, despite what you say. In my judgment it is a reasonable inference that you wanted more than that given that you preyed on a female in these particular circumstances."

[7]The Recorder considered that there was some, albeit limited, planning. He concluded, on the evidence, that the appellant did know where the victim worked. She was walking to work when the appellant attempted to kidnap her. He considered that the offence had had a significant effect on the victim, although that did not amount to serious psychological harm.

[8]The Recorder accepted that the appellant was suffering at the time from untreated symptoms of psychosis. He considered that that reduced his culpability to a limited degree, as that would have affected his decision making at the time of the offence. The Recorder also took into account other mitigating factors, notably the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions, and his continued separation from his family. He said that he had to consider the question of dangerousness and that the appellant presented:

"… a significant risk of you committing further specified offences and, if so, whether there is a significant risk of you causing serious harm in doing so. I am satisfied that you do present such a risk because of the assessment of harm by the probation officer[s] in both the initial and addendum reports to that effect. Your persistence on the night of the offence over the minutes of the offence, both in the approach and turning your car around and returning and seeking to take the victim to your car; I have concern, as I say, also over the, albeit limited, planning that I say took place in the context of this offence given that you knew where the victim worked; and the fact that you gave answers in one part to [the psychiatrist] suggesting a wish to contact the victim again. Also you do not understand your behaviour from the night in question. Whether that is to do with your mental health at the time or otherwise, that is a further troubling aspect to this which, in my judgment, increases the risk of further specified offences."

[9]The Recorder therefore decided to impose an extended determinate sentence of nine and a half years, comprising a custodial term of five and a half years and an extended licence period of four years.

[10]In his clear, helpful and focused written and oral submissions, Mr Whitty advanced two grounds of appeal on behalf of the appellant. First, he submitted that the Recorder was wrong to conclude that the appellant was a dangerous offender and to impose an extended sentence. Secondly, he submitted that the custodial element of the sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons:(1) That it did not reflect the absence of the potential aggravating factors that frequently make the offence of kidnapping so serious;

(2) That there was insufficient reduction to reflect the fact that this was an attempt, not a completed offence of kidnapping;

(3) That the Recorder did not fully reflect the appellant's reduced culpability as a result of his mental health;

(4) That the Recorder was wrong on the evidence, including the psychiatric evidence, to treat sexual motivation as an aggravating feature; and (4) That the Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's personal mitigation, bearing in mind that he was aged 52 and had no previous convictions.

[11]It is convenient to start with the second ground of appeal. At the time that the appellant was sentenced, there were no Sentencing Council guidelines for kidnapping, although there were decided cases which gave guidance on sentencing for kidnapping. They included Attorney General's Reference Nos 92 and 93 of 2014 (R v Atkins and Gibney)

[2014] EWCA Crim 2713

;

[2015] 1 Cr App R(S) 44

, and Attorney General's Reference (R v Bowskill)

[2022] EWCA Crim 1358

;

[2023] 1 Cr App R(S) 12

. From those decisions it is apparent that all offences of kidnapping are serious, albeit there may a difference in the degree of seriousness. All such offences therefore require a close analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case.

[12]In the two authorities to which we have referred, the court gave guidance as to the relevant factors to be taken into account in assessing the gravity of cases of kidnapping. Those factors include: the length of the detention; the circumstances, including location; the extent of any violence; the use of weapons; whether demands or threats to other persons were made; the effect on the victim; the extent of the planning; the number of offenders; the use of torture or humiliation; whether the kidnapping was carried out in furtherance of criminal behaviour; and any particular vulnerability of the victim. Such factors are also relevant to the assessment of the gravity of an offence of attempted kidnapping, although some factors such as duration, will have to be assessed in the context of an attempt, rather than actual detention.

[13]There are now Sentencing Council guidelines on kidnapping, which in fact reflect many of the factors referred to in the case law. However, that guideline applies only to offences sentenced after 1 April 2025. It was not in force at the time when the offence here was committed, or when the appellant was sentenced. The guidelines therefore do not affect the sentence in this case.

[14]In passing sentence the Recorder bore in mind that this was an attempt and a reduction in sentence is generally appropriate, as compared with a situation where the full offence has been carried out. The Recorder took account of the circumstances and the location. He noted that the offence was, in context, a persistent one. It lasted five to ten minutes. The appellant had in fact turned his car around and had returned to the scene. There was a limited degree of actual violence, namely grabbing, but there was a threat of greater violence, namely a threat to punch Ms Owoeye.

[15]The Recorder was well placed to consider the circumstances of the offence. He had heard the evidence in the case. He was entitled to conclude that the appellant had preyed on a female, given the circumstances of the offence. He took account to a limited extent of the appellant's reduced culpability because of his mental health.

[16]The Recorder had regard to the Sentencing Council guidelines on sentencing offenders with mental disorders. He also took into account the appellant's lack of previous convictions and his separation from his family.

[17]There is one finding, however, which we consider that the Recorder was not entitled to reach on the material before him. There is no doubt that the appellant preyed on a female. He persistently tried to force Ms Owoeye into his car to drive off with her. He threatened violence towards her. The offence was serious. We do not consider, however, on the evidence as a whole, including the psychiatric evidence, that the Recorder could be sure that the appellant intended (as he put it) to cause serious sexual harm to the victim. The psychiatric evidence indicated that the appellant thought that God had identified Ms Owoeye as the woman with whom he should form a relationship. The evidence suggests that he was a lonely man with mental health difficulties, following the sad death of his wife. The voices were not telling him to kidnap or harm somebody; they were saying "This is the woman you have been looking for, for a relationship". We do not consider that in the very unusual circumstances of this case the Recorder could legitimately infer from that that the appellant intended to go beyond trying to form a relationship with Ms Owoeye and intended serious sexual harm.

[18]In all those circumstances, therefore, the issue is whether a custodial element of five and a half years for this particular offence of attempted kidnapping was manifestly excessive.

[19]This was a serious offence. It involved an attempt to force a female off the street and into a car. It was accompanied by a threat of violence. However, the present case is highly unusual on its facts. As we have indicated, the Recorder could not be sure, on these very particular facts, that the appellant intended to inflict serious sexual harm on the victim. The reasons why the appellant was seeking to speak to the victim, and in particular what he intended to do to the victim – if anything – if he got her into the car is uncertain.

[20]For those reasons, and given the particularly unusual circumstances of this case, a custodial sentence of five and a half years was manifestly excessive. On balance – and we recognise that different judges could impose different sentences in different cases – we are satisfied that somewhere in the region of four years would have been the appropriate custodial term here.

[21]We therefore allow ground 2 of the appeal to that limited extent.

[22]In relation to ground 1, we consider that there is no proper basis for concluding that the Recorder erred in deciding that there was a significant risk to members of the public – and particularly women – of serious harm from the commission by the appellant of further offences.

[23]Whatever the ultimate motive of the appellant, he clearly was judged to be someone who had preyed on a woman and was prepared to kidnap her and to use threats of violence to do so. That is what happened. Furthermore – and significantly – the views expressed by the authors of both the pre-sentence report and the addendum report were that the appellant satisfied the statutory test of dangerousness in that he presented a significant risk of causing serious harm to women by the commission of further offences.

[24]In light of the circumstances of this offence and the views of the authors of the two reports, the Recorder was entitled to conclude that an extended sentence was justified, as the appellant met the statutory test of dangerousness.

[25]We therefore dismiss ground 1 of the appeal.

[26]For those reasons, this appeal against sentence is allowed to this extent. We quash the extended determinate sentence of nine years and six months. We substitute an extended determinate sentence of eight years, comprising a custodial element of four years and an extended licence period of four years. _______________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________