R v Lance Melville Percival [2026] EWCA Crim 428

[2026] EWCA Crim 428

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 24 March 2026

Before

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH

MRS JUSTICE O’FARRELL

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARKS KC

(Common Serjeant of London))

Between

REXCrown

LANCE MELVILLE PERCIVALDefendant

REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER s.36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988

REX

LANCE MELVILLE PERCIVAL

Mr B Lloyd appeared for Attorney General

Ms H Hurley appeared for Offender

Hearing Hearing date: 24 March 2026

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence.

Approved Judgment

[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. For the avoidance of any doubt, we do not waive or lift the prohibition.

[2]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer a sentence which she regards as unduly lenient. The offender committed a series of serious sexual offences against an exceptionally vulnerable female, who we shall call "V". There were 16 offences in all, including four offences of rape and seven offences of sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice, contrary to section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, committed on eleven separate occasions between 2021 and 2024. Most of the section 30 offences involved penetration. The offender pleaded guilty to all of the offences on 2 June 2025, which was his first appearance in the Crown Court. On 10 November 2025, HHJ Harden-Frost, sitting in the Crown Court at Guildford, imposed a series of concurrent sentences which in aggregate amounted to a sentence of 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment. We give leave.

The factual background

[3]The offender was born in 1960. V was, as we have said, an extremely vulnerable adult. She did not have the capacity to consent to sexual activity. She had moderate communication and language difficulties combined with limited understanding. She had dyspraxia and whilst she has no diagnosis of autism, she had autistic tendencies. Her brain capacity was not that of a 30-year-old person and she had a reading level of a child aged between 10 and 12. She had never had a boyfriend and had never talked about wanting one or having any interest in sex.

[4]The offender groomed the victim by introducing and presenting himself to the victim's mother as polite and friendly. He would speak about his personal circumstances, his family and children and he ingratiated himself with the victim's family. From 2020 to April 2025 the offender was employed as a local taxi-driver to pick up the victim from her family home and to drive her to and from appointments on Mondays and Fridays. The offender was a licensed taxi-driver and so V's mother did not think to question his credentials.

[5]In April 2025 the offender's wife came across an SD card on which she found clear evidence (recorded by the offender himself) that the offender was committing serious sexual offences against V. The offender's wife immediately informed the police, which swiftly led to his arrest.

[6]On being interviewed it became apparent that he had groomed both V and her mother and he frankly admitted having had sexual intercourse with V. He said it began with friendship and progressed to mutual flirtation and having sex. The files on the SD card included audio and video files which showed him having sexual intercourse with V in various places including in her own home and continuing despite V clearly asking him to stop.

[7]In summary, what was alleged by the 16 offences was as follows. A file created on 16 August 2021 showed the offender in his taxi with V. The offender is rubbing V's genitalia, and he then digitally penetrates her vagina (count 1). A file created on 6 September 2021 shows the offender in a blue car with the tailgate open near some bushes and a field. The offender is rubbing V's vagina and then he digitally penetrates her vagina (count 2). V is positioned facing into the back of the car. The offender positioned himself behind V and rapes her vaginally (count 3) which was charged as an offence under section 30.

[8]A file created on 10 September 2021 shows the offender in the same blue vehicle, tailgate open, parked in the access area to a field. V is positioned facing the back of the car and is naked from the waist down. The offender is rubbing her vagina (count 4) and then he tells her to wait whilst he gets a tube of cream. The offender then places the camera in the boot area of the car, positions himself behind V and rapes her (count 5). Again, this was charged as a section 30 offence. In the course of the recording V can be heard talking to the offender and telling him that he is hurting her. At one point he checks the time to make sure he will not be late in delivering V to her next appointment. A file created on 13 September 2021 shows the offender penetrating V's vagina with his fingers (count 6).

[9]In addition to what was revealed by those files the offender committed further sexual offences upon V as follows. On 18 March 2022, he penetrated the victim's vagina with his fingers (count 7) and raped her vaginally (count 8). On 6 February 2023, the offender touched the victim's groin (count 9). On 7 February 2023, the offender rubbed the victim's vagina (count 10). On 13 March 2023, the offender penetrated the victim's vagina with his fingers (count 11) and raped her vaginally (count 12). On 17 March 2023 the offender raped the victim vaginally (count 13) and again on a separate occasion on the same day (count 14). On 24 November 2023, the offender penetrated the victim's vagina with his fingers (count 15) and on 19 January 2024 the offender again penetrated V's vagina with his fingers (count 16).

[10]V was interviewed by the police with the assistance of an intermediary. She described how the offender raped and sexually assaulted her. She said she felt anxious when the offender was kissing her legs because she knew she was not in a relationship with him. The offender would take her to a supermarket car park and tell her that he was getting breakfast. He told her to wait in the car for him when he was supposed to be taking her to her classes. V said that she would get into the front of the car and she would wonder what was happening because it was not normal for him to be kissing her. She said it happened "lots" and then said "just a few times". The offender did not discuss sex with her, he just asked her if she wanted to have sex. She said "no" but he just did it.

[11]The offender was arrested on 15 April 2025 and was interviewed. In interview he said that he did not know how many videos there were and that he had recorded them for his own sexual gratification. He admitted having sex with V in his taxi and in his bedroom downstairs in the house. He said he had been sleeping on the sofa downstairs. He said that he had sex in the back seat of his taxi, that it was vaginal and that she had performed oral sex on him; but he admitted he performed oral sex on her in the car park. He described V as a good person who appeared normal and was always happy. He said that he did not outright ask for sex, it was a gradual relationship that progressed. He admitted that he knew that she was unable to consent to sexual activity with him.

The proceedings

[12]The offender appeared in the Magistrates' Court on 17 April 2025. He was represented and gave no indication as to plea on the Better Case Management form. We shall return to the lack of an indication in the Magistrates' Court and its significance for the appropriate reduction for the plea of guilty that followed. His case was sent to the Crown Court and on 2 June at a PTPH he pleaded guilty to the indictment, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing.

The sentencing hearing

[13]The offender had no previous convictions, though he had disclosed during interviews that he had molested two children many years before. The judge had the benefit of a victim personal statement from V's mother, which speaks eloquently of the shock and the traumatic impact of what the offender had done. It is important that the voice of the victim be heard and therefore we quote in some length from that victim personal statement:

"You have taken away our trust in others especially in taxi drivers who are booked to transport [V]. She has used taxis since the age of 5 when she started school, and she has never been subjected to such horrific and immoral behaviour that you took upon yourself to exhibit and to think was acceptable. You have taken away her independence at home as she is now not allowed to answer the door, nor walk to the local shop, because of her vulnerability which your behaviours have brought to the fore... You have taken away her innocence and have abused her both physically and mentally, even allowing for the fact that she is unable to articulate what you did to her fully at present, I have no doubt at some point she will relate the awful things that she was subjected to. Your actions have meant that she has had to endure intimate examinations following your abuse of her, that no one should have to endure... [V] has suffered from UTl's probably because of your actions, as well as epileptic seizures, that may have been caused by the stress that you have put her under over the last few years. You have left us feeling sick and numb since the day we found out about this horrific situation. You have caused me to question the way I have brought [V] up, and to regret decisions that were made, that should have been safe choices. You have abused your power, trust and intelligence to groom my daughter. I can't turn the clock back unfortunately. I am incredibly proud of [V] and how she has dealt with this awful situation, most would have crumbled, perhaps it is a shame that she is not less resilient as your heinous offences would have come to light so much sooner... The thought of having to attend court has been stressful and extremely worrying for both of us. [V] has frequently asked if she will need to go to court, something that she has found incredibly upsetting and worrying ... . Because of your actions, [V] now wishes to have only female support from her support company when not in a group... "

[14]The judge also had the benefit of a detailed pre-sentence report. The main gist of the report was that despite knowing that V was not able to consent, the offender put his desire for sexual gratification above all else when committing his crimes and that his filming of the offending was for his further sexual gratification. There was a significant degree of preplanning and manipulation through grooming.

[15]On the issue of dangerousness,the pre-sentence report said that static tools assessed the offender as posing a low risk of reoffending. However, the author assessed that these static tools underestimated the offender's likelihood of reoffending. This was his first conviction. However, the RSR tool does not factor in that the offender was repeatedly offending against the victim over a significant period of time.

[16]As regards the risk of harm, serious harm, the author noted that the offender had demonstrated that he is capable of causing serious harm during the commission of his offences. He was assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm towards V. The risk was assessed as imminent. It was reasonable to assume that the offending only stopped due to the discovery of the SD card. The offender had high sexual preoccupation. He had created the opportunities to offend. The author assessed the offender as of high risk to the general public but specifically to vulnerable females. The nature of that risk was physical, emotional and psychological harm through rape, sexual assault non-consensual contact and grooming to create further opportunities to sexually offend. That harm will be long standing and has the potential to cause psychological and physical trauma in later life. The risk is assessed as imminent and could happen at any moment. The author concluded that the court may feel the offender meets the criteria to be sentenced to an extended determinate sentence. The author assessed that the offender posed a high risk of serious harm.

[17]The prosecution submitted that the offences of rape fell within category 2 on the basis of prolonged detention, sustained incidents and uninvited entry into V's home. They were category A on the basis of a significant degree of planning, grooming and abuse of trust. In oral submissions the prosecution submitted that the combination of factors could elevate the offending into category 1A. The section 30 offences were submitted to be category 2 on the basis of prolonged incidents and culpability A on the basis of a significant degree of planning, grooming behaviour and abuse of trust. Acting for the offender as she has before us today, Ms Hurley submitted to the judge that the offences of rape fell within category 2A. She relied on the offender's admissions in interview and on her instructions that he had always intended to plead guilty. She referred also to the need to take into account the principle of totality.

The sentencing remarks

[18]The judge mistakenly thought that the offending charged in the indictment had occurred on eight occasions whereas in fact it had occurred on eleven. She considered that the offender had not been properly advised in the Magistrates’ Court. Had he been properly advised he would have formally indicated his intention to plead guilty. The combination of his admissions in interview and the footage he had recorded made it impossible for him to do otherwise than plead guilty. The judge considered that the guidelines on guilty pleas gave her latitude that enabled her to give the offender full credit as if he had given the necessary indication in the Magistrates' Court. After referring to the victim personal statement from V's mother, she set out her approach to sentencing which was to take count 8 as the lead offence, with concurrent sentences on all counts:

"I am satisfied that’s the right approach in this case. To try and manage the process the easiest way I’ve selected a lead offence, that is count 8, the first rape in time. I will impose a sentence on that count which is commensurate with the totality of your offending. So if you like, it includes all of this in one count. I will reach a starting point based on my assessment of your culpability and harm caused. I will then increase the sentence to reflect any aggravating features, including making an adjustment upwards because there is more than one incident here. I will then reduce that sentence to take account of your mitigation including your guilty pleas."

The judge then addressed the issue of dangerousness. After referring to the pre-sentence report, she concluded that the test for dangerousnesswas not met:

"Your lack of previous convictions, but more importantly your immediate admission in the interview and of course your subsequent pleas of guilty. If I am wrong about that then I will also have to consider whether your offending can adequately be dealt with by the sort of sentence that I have to impose on you for these offences, and in my judgment it can be."

The judge then turned to the categorisation of the offences dealing first with the offences of rape as follows:

"Harm. The victim is obviously particularly vulnerable. I consider, although it hasn’t been mentioned, abduction also to have been a feature here. She was supposed to have been transported by you from A to B. Instead, you drove to car parks, secluded areas, even your own home. In addition to this, these were sustained incidents. These are all category 2 features, but in my judgment the extreme nature of one of them, namely her vulnerability together with the presence of the other features pushes this into category 1. In terms of the culpability, these offences are crystal clear breaches of trust. There was also a recording of the offences. In relation to many of them there must have been considerable planning in fact by you. So in my judgment as far as the rapes are concerned these are category 1, culpability A.... That yields a starting point of 15 years in prison, with a range of between 13 and 19 years for a single offence. The defence have asked me to consider that these are properly category 2A offences with a starting point of 10 years. I do not consider that to be the correct approach, and I’m fortified in that by looking at the starting point of the offence of committing a sexual act with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice which would be a starting point of 13 years. I am dealing with four occasions of that sort of activity on the rape counts, but with the additional fact that on those four occasions the victim made it perfectly clear to you that she did not want to continue with what you were doing to her. The starting point for all the rape counts then is 15 years’ imprisonment... For completeness, the starting point on the section 30 offences where penetration is involved, is 13 years. (Inaudible). That is because I have assessed each of them all for being category 2A and that is because of the nature of the section 30 offence, the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable, is already inherent within the offence. The rapes are aggravated by the fact of ejaculation. She has had to undergo tests (inaudible). What you risked here by failure to use protection which in my judgment must be for your own gratification or to enable you to [commit] the offences. That doesn’t bear thinking about. You raped her four times, not once, and in addition you had sexual intercourse with her on a further two occasions. And that means I increase your sentence from that starting point of 15 years to one of 20 years."

[19]By way of mitigation

the judge referred to the offender being a person of good character:

"Notwithstanding the contents of your interviews and the presentence report."

We take that to be a reference to his disclosure that he had molested two children in the more distant past. She then said that the offender had pleaded guilty "at the earliest opportunity" so the sentence she would otherwise have passed should be reduced by one-third.

[20]On this basis she passed sentence as follows: on counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 16, which were of sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice involving penetration, contrary to section 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 the sentence on each count was 8 years' imprisonment concurrent. On count 3, which was another count of sexual activity contrary to section 30 involving penetration, the sentence was 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent. Count 4 was another offence contrary to section 31, not involving penetration, the sentence was 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent. Count 5 was a further offence contrary to section 31 involving penetration, for which the sentence was 9 years and 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent. On counts 8, 12, 13 and 14 which were the offences of rape, the sentence on each was 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On counts 9 and 10 which were counts alleging sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the sentence was 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On counts 11 and 15 which were assaults by penetration, contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the sentence on each was 8 years' imprisonment concurrent. That gave rise to a total sentence of 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Other orders were made to which we do not need to refer.

The Solicitor General's submissions

[21]The Solicitor General makes five main submissions. First, it is submitted that the section 30 offences should have been placed within category 1A on the basis of the extreme nature of one or more category 2 features or the extreme impact caused by combination of category 2 features. The multiple category 2 features were abduction, prolonged detention and sustained incidents and forced or uninvited entry into V's home. The starting point for a single Category 1A section 30 offence would be 16 years with a category range from 13 to 19 years.

[22]Second, the total sentence failed to reflect all of the offending behaviour in accordance with the Totality Guideline. The starting points and category ranges set out in the guidelines are for single offences. Here there were a total of 16 offences including four offences of rape and multiple section 30 offences spread over a long period. Given that the starting point for a single category 1A rape was 15 years and adopting the judge's categorisation, the starting point for a single category 2A section 30 offence with penetration would be 13 years. Those starting points should have been adjusted upwards to reflect the multiple offending and multiple aggravating features by far more than the 5 years increase adopted by the judge.

[23]Third, the reduction for the offender's mitigation was excessive. In the light of his disclosure or previous offending and the seriousness of his offending against V, his lack of previous convictions should have counted for very little.

[24]Fourth, it was submitted that he should not have received more than 25 per cent credit for his plea because he did not indicate his intention to plead guilty at the earliest possible moment. A reduction of 33 per cent could, on any view, not be justified since the offender's admissions were tempered by an element of minimising the seriousness of the conduct. It is right to say that in the light of further information obtained since the Reference was finalised, Mr Lloyd, correctly in our view, adjusted his position as we shall describe in a moment.

[25]Fifth, the judge should have concluded that the offender satisfied the definition of dangerousnessand should have imposed an extended determinate sentence.

The offender's submissions

[26]Ms Hurley has said everything that could possibly be said on behalf of the offender. She submits that the sentence of 12 years 6 months was within the range of sentences that the judge could reasonably pass. She accepts that ejaculation is an aggravating feature but submits that the location and timing of the offences are sufficiently taken into account by the elevation of the offending to category 1A. By working back from the end result she calculates that the reduction for mitigation other than his guilty pleas is no more than 6.25 per cent, which she submits is reasonable. Overall, she submits that the judge's 25 per cent increase from 15 to 20 years appropriately reflects the seriousness of the offending, particularly when it is considered that the appropriate starting point, had the judge been sentencing the offender for his single offence of rape or a single offence contrary to section 30, that single offence would have been assessed as falling within category 2A with a starting point of 10 or 13 years respectively.

Discussion and resolution

[27]The questions for this Court are whether the sentence passed by the judge was unduly lenient and, if so, whether this Court should intervene to increase it. In answering those questions, we have to take account of the principle of totality. In the present case it is material to the principle of totality that the offending involved a number of discrete occasions of serious sexual offending widely separated in time. It would not be right to treat the offending as forming one extended occurrence and the individual offences need to be given their appropriate weight when considering totality. That said, on some of the occasions, as we have outlined above, the offender committed two offences within a short period in what can properly be regarded as one extended sequence of offending.

[28]The judge was fully entitled to adopt the course of selecting a lead count and making the sentences on all counts concurrent. But if she was going to adopt that course the sentence for the lead case had to reflect the overall criminality of the offender's conduct. Equally, the judge was entitled to decide that each offence of rape fell within category 1A because of the accumulation of category 2 factors and their cumulative impact. Accordingly, the starting point for each offence of rape is 15 years.

[29]It is not clear to us why the judge treated the section 30 offence as falling within category 2A. There is, as we have indicated, a gap in the transcript of the judge's remarks at the critical moment. We think that her reason was that V's particular vulnerability, which is a discrete category 2 factor in an offence of rape, is already implicit in any offence under section 30 because the victim will by definition be someone who is subject to a mental disorder impeding choice. That may explain why the starting point for a category 2A in a section 30 case is 13 years whereas the starting point for category 2A in a rape case, which may not involve particular vulnerability, is 10 years. Be that as it may, on any view the starting point for a single offence committed by the offender contrary to section 30 involving penetration would be at least 13 years. But the offender committed seven such offences (counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 16). Such multiple offending had to exert significant upward pressure on any notional aggregate sentence. In addition, the judge had to reflect the additional criminality represented by counts 4, 9 and 10, which did not involve penetration, and counts 11 and 15, which did.

[30]Turning to mitigation other than his guilty plea, it is well established that previous good character carries little weight in the face of serious sexual offending such as this. That is particularly true where, as here, the offender himself has disclosed significant prior sexual offending. As Mr Lloyd pointed out in oral submissions it was the maintaining of the facade of previous good character that enabled the offender to work in a position of trust which he so notably abused.

[31]Turning to the reduction for plea, it will be remembered that the judge afforded the offender a full one-third credit on the basis that if he had been properly advised he would have given indication of a guilty plea at the Magistrates' Court. In our judgment, this leads into difficult waters. Nothing we say should be regarded as setting a precedent or casting doubt on the well-established principle that the absence of an indication in the Magistrates' Court of an offender's intention to plead guilty will normally mean that full credit should be denied.

[32]At the Court's request the defence have contacted the solicitor who represented the offender in the Magistrates' Court. She has provided the following information which has been presented in a section 9 statement:

"I represented the offender] as duty solicitor on 17.04.25 at Staines Magistrates’ Court. This was in respect of indictable-only offences and as such the charges were not put nor was an indication of plea specifically sought by the court. [The offender] had admitted the offences to the police and confirmed to me what he had said in police interview. However, these were extremely serious and complex charges and given that there was no expert evidence attached to the IDPC regarding the complainant's specific issues, I could not be entirely satisfied on the question of consent and without further exploration of the consideration of that issue, I did not feel I would be fulfilling my professional duty to act in [the offender's] best interests. If I were to advise that guilty pleas should be indicated at that stage. I therefore added no indication to the BCM form and was confident that in all the circumstances full credit would still be applied if guilty pleas were formally entered at the first opportunity to do so."

We have also seen the sending sheet prepared in the Magistrates' Court. The charges that were sent to the Crown Court on that occasion were two offences of rape and two offences of sexual assault. Because of the generality of the particulars of the offences, it is not possible to link those four offences sent by the Magistrates to particular offences in the indictment that the offender ultimately faced. Rather it appears that the case against the offender was reformulated before the PTPH and that the PTPH was the first occasion on which the case as later formulated was put to the offender. At the very least, in the period before the PTPH in the Crown Court two further counts of rape, all of the section 30 offences and counts 11 to 15 alleging assault by penetration were added, to which he pleaded at the first possible opportunity.

[33]We have also made inquiries as to whether at any stage after the appearance in the Magistrates' Court anyone prepared the case on the basis that it was or might be an effective trial. We were informed by Mr Lloyd, with his customary conspicuous fairness, that the case was always treated as one where there was not going to be an effective trial.

[34]It is not necessary for us to engage in a detailed review of the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. We note however that "the first stage of the proceedings" is described in paragraph D1 as "Normally... the first hearing at which a plea or indication of plea is sought and recorded by the court." We are bound to say to put it at its lowest, the view taken by the solicitor advising the offender was risky, not least because the question of consent could not realistically be an issue given the nature of V's vulnerability. However, on the particular facts of this case, with the full and frank admissions he had already made, we consider that the judge's view that it was practically impossible for him not to plead guilty was understandable.

[35]In our judgment, and as broadly accepted by Mr Lloyd, the judge's decision to afford the offender one-third credit for plea can, on the particular facts of this case, be justified by a combination of the factors to which we have referred, namely(a) the great majority of the counts to which he pleaded at the PTPH had not been added when he appeared before the Magistrates - he is therefore entitled to a full one-third credit in respect of those other counts in any event;

(b) there appears to have been a thorough reformulation of the case against the offender which was first presented at the PTPH;

(d) everyone proceeded on the basis that a trial would not be necessary. So it may be said that the main objective of encouraging guilty pleas was achieved.

[36]Finally, we turn to the question of dangerousness.In the light of(a) the prolonged history of manipulative offending against V and

(b) the disclosure of prior offending and

(c) the contents of the pre-sentence report, we find it impossible to justify the judge's finding that the offender was not a dangerous offender. He clearly was. The more difficult question is whether it is possible to sustain the judge's indication that had she made a finding of dangerousness she would have taken the view that the risk posed by the offender could adequately be dealt with by a determinate sentence of the length she proposed to pass. We return to this question below.

[37]Drawing these strands together, we are in no doubt that the aggregate sentence imposed by the judge was not merely lenient but unduly lenient. Given that the appropriate starting point for any one of the rapes committed by the offender would have been 15 years and the starting point for any one of the penetrative section 30 offences would have been at least 13 years, and making all due allowance for totality, we consider that the notional sentence for this offending after a trial, and before making any reduction for personal mitigation, would have been not less than about 24 to 25 years. We reach this conclusion because the fact of there being four rapes not one should have led, on its own, to an upwards adjustment to a point close to 20 years. Added to which was the need to reflect the seriousness sustained offending represented by the other counts on the indictment.

[38]As we have already indicated, the offender's personal mitigation counted for very little particularly in the light of his disclosure of prior offending. The discount for plea therefore falls to be applied to a notional sentence that could not be less than approximately 24 years. In the light of the matters we have discussed above and for the reasons there set out, we would uphold the decision of the judge to afford the offender a reduction of one-third for his plea.

[39]That leaves the question of dangerousness. In our judgment, the offender was clearly dangerous. He was 65 at the time of being sentenced. Contrary to Ms Hurley's submission, it cannot be assumed that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Assessing the risk he poses at the time of sentencing, we are clearly of the view that an extended determinate sentence is required and that an extended licence period of 4 years would be the least that is proportionate to the risk he poses.

[40]For these reasons, we consider that the sentence passed by the judge was not merely lenient but unduly lenient. In the result, we take the view that the least sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of this case is an extended sentence of 20 years comprising a custodial element of 16 years and an extended licence period of 4 years. We will therefore quash the sentence on each of counts 8, 12, 13 and 14 and substitute the sentence of 20 years that we have just described.