R v Jason Reid [2026] EWCA Crim 815

WARNING: REPORTING RESTRICTIONS APPLY to the contents transcribed in this document, as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, nothing may be included in any report of these proceedings which names, or may otherwise lead members of the public to identify, the complainant. 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Between

R EXCrown

London

WC2A 2LL

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT KINGSTON UPON THAMES

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE LODDER KC) [T20217002]

Case No 2025/01263/B1 [2026] EWCA Crim 815 Tuesday 16 June 2026

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE WARBY

MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY

MRS JUSTICE BRUNNER DBE

____________________

- v –

Between

JASON REID

____________________

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)

___________________

Non Counsel Application

___________________

J U D G M E N T

Date 2026-06-16

[1]It should be noted that the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. No matter relating to the complainant shall during her lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify her as the victim of the offences.

[2]On 2 July 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames before His Honour Judge Lodder KC and a jury, the applicant was convicted of three offences: kidnap, false imprisonment, and committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual assault.

[3]On 3 March 2025, the applicant was sentenced by the trial judge as follows: for kidnap, six years' imprisonment; for false imprisonment, six years' imprisonment; and committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence, nine years' imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other. The total sentence was therefore one of nine years' imprisonment.

[4]The applicant now renews his application for an extension of time (ten days) in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order after refusal by the single judge.

[5]The facts in brief are these. The complainant attended a party with a friend on 1 January 2017. The applicant was also there. The complainant had already consumed some alcohol when she arrived at the party. She drank more at the party and her state deteriorated. The applicant agreed to look after her, and the complainant's friend left her in the care of the applicant.

[6]The first offence (kidnap) involved the applicant taking the complainant from the party into his car. The judge’s sentencing remarks record his finding that the complainant was so drunk that she could not have walked to the car unaided and would not have been capable of getting into the car, or of resisting. The jury acquitted on a count of committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence related to the kidnap.

[7]The complainant's friend realised that she did not know where the complainant was. She saw the applicant getting out of a car near to where the party had been. He was doing up his trousers. She asked the applicant where the complainant was. He lied and said that he did not know. When the complainant's friend threatened to call the police, the applicant said that the complainant was in his car. The count of false imprisonment relates to the detention of the complainant in the car. The judge found that she had been detained in the car for 30 to 40 minutes. She was in the reclined front passenger seat, unconscious. Her knickers were around one of her ankles. Her dress was pulled up. She was naked from the waist down. She had vomited. The complainant’s friend thought that she saw something like semen on the complainant's leg – and semen was later found on the car seat. The judge found that the applicant's intention had been to rape the complainant and that he was very close to doing so. The complainant's friend and the applicant helped get the complainant out of the car, and the applicant then drove off.

[8]In his sentencing remarks, the judge noted that the complainant was unresponsive and unconscious when she was taken out of the car and did not come round for many hours.

[9]The applicant was arrested on 14 February 2017. In two police interviews he made no comment to questions asked.

[10]There was a substantial delay before conviction. That was partly caused by the case being closed by police, and then re-opened in 2020 after developments. Two trials were started and stopped for various reasons, before the effective trial in 2024.

[11]In his sentencing remarks, the judge said that he would aggregate the sentences to reflect overall criminality and would pass concurrent sentences.

[12]The applicant was aged 45 at sentence. He had nine convictions for 18 offences, including three offences against the person.

[13]The proposed grounds of appeal were twofold:(1) That the judge erred in imposing sentences of six years' imprisonment for kidnap and false imprisonment, which were manifestly excessive; and

(2) That the judge erred in imposing a three-year enhancement for the intent to commit rape, which was manifestly excessive.

[14]In refusing leave, the single

judge made the following observations, with which we agree:

"I have considered the papers in your case and your [proposed] grounds of appeal. You were convicted of kidnap, false imprisonment and committing an offence with a view to committing a sexual offence. You have previous convictions for violence, robbery, unlawful driving and drugs. You were sentenced to a total of nine years imprisonment: six years for kidnap and false imprisonment and nine years for the third offence. You seek leave to appeal on the basis that this was a manifestly excessive sentence. Six years is not arguably manifestly excessive for kidnap and false imprisonment. This was a serious offence. The abducted person was a lone female who was inebriated. She was vulnerable and unable to take care of herself. The abduction lasted for over half an hour. You have significant previous convictions. An uplift of three years to represent your ulterior intention (to rape) is also not arguably manifestly excessive. You rely on the Sentencing Council definitive guideline which suggests that an uplift of two years might be appropriate where the intention was to commit an act of rape. However, the guideline does not stipulate that this is always the appropriate uplift from the basic sentence where such a rape offence is contemplated. The proper increase is always fact specific. Here, the judge was entitled to find that you made significant progress in your plan to rape the complainant before abandoning it (presumably when she vomited). Her pants had been taken down and there was scientific evidence that you had been close to her. Three years on the basis of these conclusions (which could properly be drawn by the judge on the evidence) was not arguably inappropriate. I do not extend time as I do not conclude that the appeal has merit"

[15]We agree with and we adopt those reasons. We refuse the applications. _____________________________ 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 16. ______________________________