R v Raymond Martin Langley [2026] EWCA Crim 449

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 449Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Wednesday, 25 March 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMRS JUSTICE O’FARRELL DBETHE COMMON SERJEANT OF LONDONHIS HONOUR JUDGE MARKS KC
Between
REXCrownV
Between
RAYMOND MARTIN LANGLEY__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MISS R UPTON appeared for Appellant_________J U D G M E N T
[1]MRS JUSTICE O'FARRELL: The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that 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. We do not waive those provisions.[2]On 22 September 2025 at the Lewes Crown Court before Miss Recorder Whitaker, the appellant was convicted on four counts of buggery and 12 counts of indecent assault.[3]On 10 October 2025 he was sentenced as follows:a. On count 1, buggery, contrary to section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, 10 years' imprisonment.b. On count 2, 10 years concurrent.c. On count 16, buggery, contrary to section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, 10 years consecutive.d. On count 17, 10 years concurrent.e. On the indecent assault counts there were concurrent sentences. That produced a total of 20 years' imprisonment.[4]The appellant appeals against his sentence by leave of the single judge on the basis that arguably it was manifestly excessive.[5]The material background facts are as follows. On 24 September 2021 complainant 1 made a report to the police that he had been sexually abused as a 13-year-old at Tylehurst School in East Sussex between January and July 1979. The abuse was at the hands of the appellant who was the housemaster or bursar. The abuse included both oral and anal rape. Complainant 1 said he had blocked the memories out for many years and struggled with them and he only then felt strong enough to make his disclosure.[6]Tylehurst School was a boarding school for children referred by local authorities who diagnosed them as emotionally unstable and vulnerable. Complainant 1 started the school in January 1979 and was aged 13 throughout the abuse. He stated he was the victim of bullying and it was this which led to him coming to the appellant's attention. One evening when he had been upset the appellant told him that he could stay in his room to avoid the school bullies. Complainant 1 fell asleep in the appellant's bed. The next morning he woke to find the appellant behind him and described that his bottom was wet and sticky. At the time he did not understand what this meant but as an adult he realised that the appellant had ejaculated.[7]This sexual abuse continued most mornings and evenings from January to July of that year. The appellant would regularly anally penetrate complainant 1 and ejaculate, (counts 1 and 2) together with other sexual assaults (counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Complainant 1 described how none of the sexual activity was wanted but he made it known that anal penetration hurt so the appellant would wait until he was asleep and do it.[8]Following arrest, in interview, the appellant denied the accusations and described them as pure fantasy. He said that complainant 1 came from a troubled background and he felt sorry for him due to this. He denied knowing that complainant 1 was bullied, inviting him to his room or allowing him to stay overnight. He said there was no sexual contact between them.[9]On 15 February 2023 complainant 2 made allegations of abuse against the appellant. In his statement complainant 2 said he had attended Tylehurst from April 1977 to July 1981 when he was aged 12 to 17. The offending against him occurred between April 1977 (when he was 12 years old) and June 1979 (when he was 14). He described the school as a frightening experience and that there was much bullying.[10]The abuse started with sexual assaults in the bathroom and showers and progressed to the appellant performing oral sex on him (counts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15). In the spring term of 1979 the appellant invited complainant 2 into his room to watch a film and look at pornographic magazines. Whilst there the appellant pushed complainant 2 onto his side and penetrated his anus with his penis (count 16).[11]About four weeks later complainant 2 was in the appellant's room looking at his pornographic magazines when the appellant performed oral sex on complainant 2 and then repeatedly penetrated his anus with his penis (count 17).[12]Complainant 2 disclosed to the headmaster, Anthony Rodway that he and the appellant had been looking at magazines and masturbating in his bedroom at night but no action was taken.[13]When interviewed, the appellant denied being aware that complainant 2 was bullied. He said that he did not spend any more time with complainant 2 than he did with any other pupil. He denied all other aspects of sexual conduct with complainant 2, saying it was all absolute rubbish and fantasy.[14]The following victim personal statements were before the Crown Court. Complainant 1:
"Over the last 40 years, I have not spoken about my past until now. I never told my family because he said if I did then he wouldn’t be able to protect me anymore and I’d have to go back to the bullies. I have had to deal with many sleepless nights, which often include nightmares of Langley which wake me up in a panicked state to which I am then unable to go back to sleep. The lack of sleep has affected my day-to-day life, I have been diagnosed with anxiety and depression which I have to take medication for. Even just going to bed makes me anxious, I worry about getting stuck in the duvet bringing memories back of Langley holding me from behind. I have more recently been prescribed sleeping pills to help me sleep, another medication to take due to Langley's actions of taking advantage of me as a child. I have gone on to have 3 amazing children with my ex-wife, however, bringing them up has had its challenges. I never bathed or changed their nappies as I could not touch their intimate parts, Langley stripped me of my capability as a father to my children as memories of him would come back to me. I experience crying outbursts at times which are uncontrollable, which are brought about from the memories of Langley abusing me. These memories come to me unexpectedly which makes me a very anxious person. I have also sought comfort in food over the years resulting in obesity. When I can’t sleep I eat. Coming forward has been a frightening experience. It has taken all the courage I have because it has heightened all the terrifying feelings of fear, shame, confusion, isolation and sickening turmoil I have felt inside over the years and still feel to this day. The truth is the truth and although I cannot escape it I have at least finally found the courage to tell it!"
Complainant 2:
"[The appellant] made me the victim of his coercion. He took away the innocence of intimacy and used me for sex – a physical abuse that takes a lifetime to unravel. He shamed me for my whole life until I met my husband 31 years ago. I have been haunted by him and lived with the anxiety, turmoil and misunderstood guilt followed by shame and silence. I have never told my mother or father or my husband until 40 years later. As for the institution there was no questioning, no curiosity or observance of children, just a wall of silence. The thought of re-living those extreme experiences in my intimate relations has always been a part of my husband’s life too. Not only has this experience changed my life it has been affected the closest to me. Raymond Langley trapped me psychologically, which has never left me and I struggle with that knowledge to this day. I am happy now that at last he has been put on trial, held to account for his behaviour – whatever the outcome, my story is heard."
The sentencing remarks[15]The Recorder dealt with the offending against complainant 1 (counts 1, 2, and 4 to 9) all committed against him when he was 13 years old. The Recorder took the first count of buggery (count 1) as the lead offence, treating the other offences committed against him as aggravating features of the lead offence and passing concurrent sentences in relation to those offences.[16]The Recorder recognised that as these were historical sexual offences she should use the sentencing guidelines for the equivalent offence under the current sentencing regime, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but was obliged to apply the statutory maxima that were in force at the time. In the case of the offence of buggery, the maximum sentence was life imprisonment.[17]The Recorder noted that the equivalent offence under the 2003 Act was anal rape. The offence was category A culpability because it involved breach of trust and category 2 harm based on the severe psychological harm suffered by the victim. A category 2A offence has a starting point of 10 years' custody with a range of nine to 13 years for one offence.[18]The Recorder held that the offence was aggravated by the fact of ejaculation and by the other offences, in particular the second offence of buggery, taking it outside the ordinary sentencing range to 15 years.[19]In mitigation, the appellant was 76 years old, now 77, and had no previous convictions. He had suffered his own abuse in childhood. A further reduction was made by the Recorder for the impact of imprisonment on the appellant given his health conditions, including urinary and faecal incontinence, mobility issues substantial deafness and other infirmities of age. This resulted in a term of 13 years, subject to consideration of totality in the context of the overall sentence. The judge imposed a concurrent sentence of 10 years' imprisonment on count 2 and concurrent sentences on the other counts.[20]The Recorder adopted the same approach to the offending against complainant 2, taking the offence of buggery (count 16) as the lead offence and passing concurrent sentences on counts 17 and 10 to 15.[21]The resultant term of 13 years in respect of the offending against complainant 2 was made consecutive to that imposed in respect of the offending against complainant 1. This resulted in a total of 26 years' imprisonment which the Recorder reduced to 20 years to reflect the principle of totality and ensure a proportionate sentence. Grounds of appeal[22]The grounds of appeal for which leave has been granted are: 1. The Recorder should have considered the guideline for a section 9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 in relation to all counts, apart from counts 8 and 9, given the facts of the case. 2. The Recorder should have applied the guidelines in a manner that was consistent with the measured reference approach of having regard to the sentencing guidelines for equivalent offences, but not applying them in a mechanistic way. 3. The judge took a starting point at the top of the range for the offence of buggery despite the mitigating features present. 4. The judge gave insufficient consideration to the appellant's age, health, good character and the passage of time reflected by his lack of convictions and character references which can properly be treated as mitigating features. Discussion[23]With historic offences the court is required to reach the appropriate sentence against the background of the statutory maximum that applied at the time of the offence but having regard to the guidelines in force at the date of sentence. When identifying an appropriate guideline, the court is entitled to look to a modern offence containing equivalent elements to the historic offence.[24]Under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the offence of buggery was not treated as rape because the common law definition of rape at that time was limited to unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent. Under the 1956 Act, an offence of buggery of a boy under the age of 16 (as in this case) carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment - the same maximum sentence as for rape under section 1 of the 1956 Act and for rape under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offence of buggery would now be charged as an offence of rape under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, defined as including intentional penetration of the anus of another person by the defendant's penis in circumstances where the victim does not consent and the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim consents.[25]An offence under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is one of sexual activity with a child aged 13 to 15 years old. Although the sexual touching can involve penetration, it does not necessarily amount to rape. That would not have been an appropriate guideline to use in our view because it did not reflect the seriousness of the sexual abuse against the boys in this case.[26]We consider that it was appropriate for the Recorder to use the rape sentencing guideline in respect of counts 1, 2, 16 and 17 in circumstances where the offences amounted to anal rape. They were category 2A offences, each giving a starting point of 10 years' custody with a range of nine to 13 years.[27]We reject the submission that the guideline was applied in a mechanistic way or that the Recorder took a starting point at the top of the range. She took the starting point of 10 years but was entitled to adjust upwards by a significant margin to take account of the number of offences and aggravating factors. In particular, in relation to each victim there were two counts of anal rape and multiple other offences of sexual assault. The approach by the Recorder cannot be faulted. She was entitled to impose consecutive sentences in respect of the offences against each victim. She adopted the conventional approach by taking the most serious offences as index offences - count 1 in respect of complainant 1, count 16 in respect of complainant 2 - determining a term to reflect the overall criminality for all offending against each victim, reducing each term to reflect the principle of totality and then imposing concurrent terms in respect of the other offences.[28]Aggravating features were the specific targeting of particularly vulnerable boys, both victims of bullying at the school, and the multiple sexual offences against each complainant.[29]The Recorder expressly considered the appellant's mitigation, in particular his own neglectful and abusive childhood, the passage of time since the offending, his personal health issues and the death of his wife. There were supportive character references but in cases of historic sexual offences previous good character does not carry much weight.[30]The appellant is now 77 years of age but he has blighted the lives of his victims for decades and their trauma continues to affect them.[31]We are of the view that the sentencing exercise carried out by the Recorder and her sentencing remarks were exemplary.[32]For those reasons we do not consider that the sentence is excessive, let alone manifestly so. The sentence was lawful, proportionate and just.[33]Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 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 1JE34. Tel No: 020 7404 140035. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk