R v Richard Burrows [2026] EWCA Crim 864

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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R E XCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CHESTER
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE STEVEN EVERETT)
Case No 2025/01627/A5
T19971501
Thursday 18 June 2026
Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Crim 864
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE EDIS
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
MS JUSTICE NORTON DBE
____________________
- v -
Between
RICHARD BURROWS____________________Computer Aided Transcription 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)____________________Mr P Clemo and Miss A Carrier appeared for ApplicantMr M Connor appeared for Crown____________________J U D G M E N T(Approved)Date 2026-06-18
[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. 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 the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

Introduction

[2]This is an application for leave to appeal which has been referred to the full court by the Registrar.[3]On 30 April 2025, in the Crown Court at Chester, the applicant was sentenced by HHJ Everett, the Honorary Recorder of Chester, to a total sentence of 47 years' imprisonment. That sentence comprised standard determinate sentences totalling 28 years' imprisonment and a consecutive special custodial sentence (imposed under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for an offender of particular concern) of 19 years, comprising a custodial term of 18 years and an additional one year period of licence. As the length of that total sentence would suggest, the offending here involved multiple instances of extremely grave sexual offending against young children.[4]All of the victims are, as we have said at the outset of this judgment, entitled to anonymity. For that reason, we shall refer to the victims, of whom there were no fewer than 24, as "C1" to "C24".

The Factual Background

[5]The applicant was aged 81 at the time of sentence. He is now aged 82. He is a paedophile and a sexual predator who preyed upon young boys between the ages of 10 and 15 for over three decades, from 1966 to 1997. He subjected them to vile acts of sexual abuse, including anal and oral rape. There were 102 counts in all in respect of the 24 victims. Most of the charges were under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Given the large number of offences, it is convenient to summarise them and the sentences imposed in each case in tabular form as follows: Count Offence Pleaded guilty or convicted Sentence Consecutive or Concurrent Maximum 1 & 2 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 21.1.25 2 years’ imprisonment Concurrent on each count 10 years’ imprisonment 3 Buggery (s.12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted A Special Custodial Sentence of 17 years comprising a custodial term of 16 years and an additional one-year period of licence Concurrent to Count 4 Life imprisonment 4 Buggery (s.12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 17 years’ imprisonment Consecutive to Count 1 Life imprisonment 5-8, 12-16, 22-27, 30-33 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 9 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted A Special Custodial Sentence of 9 years comprising a custodial term of 8 years and an additional one-year period of licence Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 11, 17, 20, 29, 36 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 8 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 21, 37 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 9 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 28 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 7 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 34, 35 Indecency with a Child (s.1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960) Convicted No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 4 2 years’ imprisonment 38 Buggery (s.12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 14 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 4 Life imprisonment 42 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 2 years 6 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 4 10 years’ imprisonment 43 Buggery (s.12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted A Special Custodial Sentence of 19 years comprising a custodial term of 18 years and an additional one year period of licence Consecutive to Counts 1 & 4 Life imprisonment 44, 46, 49 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted A Special Custodial Sentence of 9 years comprising a custodial term of 8 years and an additional one-year period of licence Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 45, 47, 48, 50-52 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 53, 70, 72 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 54 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 3 years 9 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 55, 64, 65 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 22 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 56 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 5 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 57-60, 69 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 20 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 61, 63, 67-68 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 62 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 6 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 66 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 71 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 3 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 43 10 years’ imprisonment 73-75 Making Indecent Images of Children (s.1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 8 months’ imprisonment Concurrent on each count 10 years’ imprisonment 76-79 Possession of a False Identity Document with Intent (s.4(1) of the Identity Documents Act 2010) Pleaded Guilty 5.8.24 1 year imprisonment Concurrent on each count 10 years’ imprisonment 80, 84-86 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 81 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 2.10.24 2 years 1 month imprisonment Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 87 Attempted Buggery (contrary to Common Law) Convicted 7 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 88-90, 99-101 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 27.1.25 No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 91 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted 6 years’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 92-94, 96-98 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Convicted No Separate Penalty Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 95 Attempted Buggery, (contrary to Common Law) Convicted 9 years’ imprisonment Consecutive to Counts 1, 4 & 43 10 years’ imprisonment 102 Indecent Assault on a Male Person (s.15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) Pleaded Guilty 27.1.25 2 years 11 months’ imprisonment Concurrent to Count 95 10 years’ imprisonment 103 Possession of Indecent Photographs of Children (s.160(1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) Pleaded Guilty 21.1.25 6 months’ imprisonment Concurrent 6 months’ imprisonment 104, 105 Possession of Indecent Photographs of Children (s.160(1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) Pleaded Guilty 21.1.25 No Separate Penalty Concurrent on each count 6 months’ imprisonment - Fail to Surrender (s.6 of the Bail Act 1976) Admitted 2.4.24 8 months’ imprisonment Concurrent 12 months’ imprisonment[6]The applicant's predatory behaviour began in about 1966. He was a radio ham enthusiast and would exploit young boys’ interest in radio and outdoor activity to get close to his victims. C1 was aged 12 or 13 when he went to the applicant's home to view radio equipment. The applicant instructed C1 to sit on his lap before putting his hand inside C1's pants and holding his penis and scrotum. C2, when aged about 12, was similarly assaulted when he went sailing with the applicant. (Counts 1 and 2)

Danesford Approved School

[7]Between March 1969 and November 1971, the applicant was employed as a housemaster at Danesford Approved School for boys in Congleton, Cheshire. The boys who attended the school were vulnerable; they had often been in trouble with the law or there had been problems at home.[8]C3 attended Danesford. When he was 12 years old, the applicant began to work as C3's housemaster. The applicant would wake C3 in the dormitory in the middle of the night saying that he had wet the bed and would tell C3 to go to the toilet where he would tell C3 to take down his pants. The applicant would then masturbate C3. The abuse progressed and included causing C3 to masturbate the applicant, the penetration of C3’s mouth with his penis to ejaculation, and the penetration of C3's anus with his penis. Each of these acts occurred on multiple occasions. C3 described the penetration of his anus as being very painful; he would cry and ask the applicant to stop, but he did not. C3's bottom bled afterwards. Abuse also occurred on a camping trip to Wales. (Counts 3 to 12)[9]C4 (now deceased) also attended Danesford from when he was 12 years old. The applicant caused C4 to masturbate him to ejaculation on several occasions and progressed to an incident in the scouts' storeroom when the applicant forced his penis into C4's mouth and told him to "suck it". (Counts 13 to 17)[10]Similar abuse was perpetrated against C5 (now deceased) (Counts 20 -23), C6 (Counts 24 to 31), C7 (Counts 32 to 38) and C8 (now deceased) (Count 43). In C6's case, the applicant penetrated C6's anus with his finger whilst masturbating him on multiple occasions. C6 eventually told the headmaster, but instead of the appropriate action being taken, C6 was given a "good hiding". In C7's case, the applicant regularly caused C7 to perform oral sex upon him and the abuse progressed to an incident where he bent C7 over a chair and inserted his penis into his anus. C7 told him that it hurt, but he continued before pulling out and ejaculating on C7's back. C7 was aged just 13 at the time.[11]The applicant was subject to a complaint against him and was dismissed in November 1971. However, no further action was taken against him.

The Scouts

[12]The applicant was involved in Scouting, through which numerous young boys were left in his care only to be seriously abused.[13]C9 went on a camping trip with the Scouts when he was aged 10 or 11. There was a flood during the camp, following which he was told to stay in a tent with the applicant. The applicant told C9 to get into his sleeping bag and he touched C9's genitals whilst saying, "This will make you feel warmer". C9 then felt pain as the applicant penetrated his anus with his penis. The next day, he was still in pain in his bottom and stomach, and he soiled himself. Later that day, the applicant asked him to collect the post with him; on the walk the applicant took down his trousers and made C9 perform oral sex on him against a tree. The applicant tried to ejaculate in C9's mouth but C9 turned his head. He told C9 not to tell anyone. (Counts 43 to 52)[14]Similar acts of abuse were perpetrated against C9 on bonfire night in November 1971, during a camping trip near Ross on Wye in summer 1972, and at a Friday night Scouts' meet up in 1972 or 1973.[15]The applicant's other victims whilst in the Scouts were C10 (Counts 53 and 54), C11 (Count 55), C12 (Count 56), C13 (Counts 57 and 58), C14 (Count 59), C15 (Count 60), C16 (Counts 61 to 63), C17 (Counts 64 and 65), C18 (Count 66), C19 (Counts 67 to 69), and C20 (Counts 70 to 72). Each of those young boys was subject to a range of abusive acts which included being sexually touched, being required to masturbate the applicant, attempted digital penetration of the anus, and/or being required to perform oral sex on him.[16]Some of this abuse occurred in the applicant's home after victims had been invited to stay over to view his radio or computer equipment; on other occasions the abuse took place on camping trips, in caravans or in hotels. These incidents occurred over a period of 25 years from 1971 to about 1996. The abuse was latterly reported leading to the applicant's dismissal from the Scouts in 1994, but the matter was not brought to the attention of the police.

The "D" Family

[17]The final category of offending was against four boys in the D family, whom the applicant met in the early 1970s at an amateur radio event. The applicant became closely involved with this vulnerable family and abused four boys within the family at various locations across the country; none of the boys knew that the others were being abused.[18]C21, the eldest son, was 15 or 16 when the applicant masturbated him on no fewer than three occasions (Counts 80 and 81). His younger brother, C22 (Counts 84 to 91) remembered the applicant being friendly and giving the boys attention that their own father did not; he would let them sit on his lap, drive his car around a field, and take them rowing and sailing. After the abuse began, the applicant told C22 that he could not say anything to anybody or there would be lots of questions, he would be locked up, his parents would be taken in by the police, and the family would be split up.[19]C22 said that the first incident happened on a camping trip; he woke in the night to find the applicant vigorously masturbating him. The second incident happened when he stayed at the house of the applicant's parents; the applicant masturbated him and because he could not ejaculate, the applicant treated the activity like a sex education lesson. C22 said that he submitted to the abuse which continued for around two years. During this time, he was groped hundreds of times, in particular when he was in the car with the applicant or when they were rowing and sailing.[20]When C22 was aged 12 or 13, they stayed in a cottage in Wales. He shared a bed with the applicant and they were both naked. The applicant had an erection and masturbated C22. He also probed his anus with his penis but was unable to penetrate him.[21]On an occasion at the applicant's flat, the applicant masturbated C22 and put his penis in his mouth for a few seconds. C22 told him that he did not enjoy it and the applicant backed off.[22]Similar acts of abuse were perpetrated against the third brother, C23 (Counts 92 to 98) when C23 was around 10 years old. Then included one occasion when the applicant was in the family home watching a movie with the children. The boys' parents were at home but not in the same room where the abuse (the touching of genitalia) occurred.[23]Another incident took place at the applicant's flat when C23 and his younger brother stayed over. Amongst other acts of abuse, the applicant tried to penetrate C23's anus with his penis but C23 told him, "no" and rolled onto his back. (Count 95)[24]Finally, C24 was similarly abused by the applicant from about the age of 12 (Counts 99 to 102).

Arrest and Absconsion to Thailand

[25]In 1994, the police began an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse at children's homes in Cheshire, as a result of which a number of complainants made allegations against the applicant. On 9 April 1997, the applicant was arrested at his home address in Birmingham. Magazines depicting adolescent and pre-pubescent boys engaged in sexual activity were recovered. They comprised: 75 category A images, 107 category B images and 473 category C images. (Counts 103 to 105)[26]On 10 April and 21 May 1997, the applicant was charged with a number of child sex offences. He was granted bail and was due to appear at Chester Crown Court on 8 December 1997. He failed to attend that hearing and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He had in fact fled to Thailand under the name of "Peter Leslie Smith", having cloned an acquaintance's identity and obtained a passport in that name (Counts 76 to 79). The applicant's failure to attend court was publicised over the years, most notably on the BBC television programme "Crimewatch", and those appeals prompted other complainants to come forward. The applicant enjoyed 27 years on the run in Thailand before he ran out of money. On 28 March 2024, he returned to the United Kingdom and was arrested at Heathrow airport.[27]On 2 April 2024, the applicant (then aged 80) pleaded guilty to one offence of failure to surrender, contrary to section 6 of the Bail Act 1976. Between 2 April 2024 and 27 January 2025 before the same court, the applicant pleaded guilty to various counts of indecent assault on a male and to the three counts of possession of indecent photographs of children. However, he maintained his plea of not guilty to the remaining counts, including those of buggery and attempted buggery, and the 49 counts of indecent assault on a male.[28]At trial, before the same court, save for eight counts in respect of which there was a directed verdict or no evidence offered (Counts 10, 18, 19, 39 to 41, 82 and 83), the applicant was found guilty by the jury of all remaining counts.

The Sentencing Remarks

[29]In thorough and carefully considered sentencing remarks, the judge described the applicant as a despicable man who had sexually abused 24 boys between the ages of 10 and 15, having deliberately positioned himself amongst groups and communities to get close to, groom and sexually abuse them. The abuse of the D family was "astonishing". It showed a lot of careful planning and thought as to how he would get those boys alone on the many, many occasions that he abused them in many different ways.[30]It was clear from the Victim Personal Statements that the applicant had created feelings of isolation, shame, embarrassment, guilt, hatred and fear, often resulting in an inability to trust persons in authority. There was also the physical pain, sometimes resulting in medical problems, and the serious and significant psychological harm caused, resulting in, for some of the complainants, suicide attempts, an inability to have loving relationships, post-traumatic stress, harrowing nightmares, flashbacks, panic attacks, and depression, which affected them and their loved ones. The applicant had ruined countless lives and had shown no remorse.[31]The fact that the applicant fled to Thailand for 30 years increased the anguish suffered by the complainants as they were anticipating justice to take its course. After a number of reports in the BBC programme "Crimewatch" over the next few years, other complainants came forward which substantially increased the seriousness of the already very serious allegations. The judge observed that this was the most serious historic sexual prosecution that he had dealt with, due to the significant number of complainants, the significant breaches of trust, the length of the period of the offending, the delay caused by the applicant, and the huge and devastating effect on the complainants.[32]The judge had considered all of the relevant sentencing guidelines, including Annex B dealing with historic sexual offences, and a custodial sentence of considerable length was inevitable. The judge said that he had kept in mind "reduction of sentence for an early guilty plea" and he went through the appropriate credit for each of the 24 complainants.[33]In relation to the principle of totality, the judge said that the case should be sentenced in five different sections. Counts 1 and 2 were the start of the applicant's predatory behaviour. An overall sentence, principally in relation to C3, with no separate penalty or concurrent sentences in relation to the other complainants, would then be passed in relation to the Danesford offences (although at least one sentence would be passed in relation to each complainant). A consecutive sentence would then be passed in relation to the Scouts, the lead offending being in relation to C9, with concurrent sentences in relation to the other complainants. An overall consecutive sentence would then be passed in relation to the D Family, with concurrent sentences being passed in relation to the offences relating to indecent images of children, false identity documents and failure to surrender.[34]The judge was constrained by the maximum sentences available at the time of offending for many of the offences and had to keep in mind the offences of particular concern.[35]The judge considered dangerousness; bearing in mind the applicant’s age and ill health, he could not be considered a danger now or in the future. Had the sentencing exercise taken place 20 years earlier, the judge would have passed a sentence of life imprisonment.[36]Culpability and harm fell within either category A1 or A2 of the relevant guideline. Almost every offence involved significant planning, grooming behaviour, gross abuse of trust and severe psychological harm. The aggravating features included, in several cases: degradation and ejaculation, the timing and location of the offending, the presence of others, and the fact that the applicant left the jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid prosecution.[37]The applicant's lack of previous convictions was not a mitigating feature; he had used his good character to gain access to young boys, but the judge had borne in mind the applicant's age and health as mitigating features.[38]It was on these bases that the judge imposed the sentences summarised above. The Proposed Grounds of Appeal There are two proposed grounds of appeal. First, it is said that, although correct to group these offences into categories for the purposes of sentencing, the judge erred in separating the Scouting offences from the D Family offences. Mr Clemo and Miss Carrier, who appear for the applicant (as they did below) submit that on a proper consideration of the totality principles, the offending in these two groups should have been treated as one group, as the two sets of offending overlapped in time and an interest in ham radio was a defining feature in both. On that basis, the D Family sentences ought to have been ordered to run concurrently with the sentences for the Scouting offences.

The Proposed Grounds of Appeal

[39]Further, or in the alternative – and this is the principal submission upon which Mr Clemo relied – it is said that the judge failed to take proper and sufficient account of the totality principles and had imposed a sentence that was, in the event, manifestly excessive, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending.

Discussion and Decision

[40]We begin by paying tribute to the meticulous way in which the judge approached this exceptionally difficult sentencing exercise. No issue is taken with the judge's approach of grouping the offences into four categories and then imposing a lead sentence on each which reflected the overall criminality of the offending in that category; and nor could it be. Such an approach is entirely in accordance with totality principles, which the judge clearly had in mind. However, considerations of totality do not end with categorisation and the identification of lead offences. The guiding principle throughout the sentencing exercise must be that the total sentence passed is one that reflects all the offending behaviour before the court and is just and proportionate. Indeed, the Totality Guidelines indicate that judges must test the overall sentence against the requirement that the total sentence is just and proportionate in respect of the offending as a whole.[41]This court considered the approach to be taken in cases involving multiple offending against numerous victims in R v AYO [2022] EWCA Crim 1271. In giving the judgment of the court, Holroyde LJ (the Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) said:
"24. The appropriate length of the custodial sentence, or of the total custodial sentence in a case involving more than one offence, will depend on the seriousness of the offending. We have been referred by counsel to the sentences in a number of cases involving multiple serious sexual offences: R v Watkins [2014] EWCA Crim 1956, [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 6; R v DJ [2015] EWCA Crim 563, [2015] 2 Cr App R (S) 16; R v Leighton [2017] EWCA Crim 2057; R v Falder [2018] EWCA Crim 2514, [2019] 1 Cr App R (S) 46; AG's Reference, JRM [2021] EWCA Crim 524; and AG's Reference, R v Wilson [2021] EWCA Crim 839. The facts and circumstances of cases inevitably differ. The assistance to be gained by comparing sentences in other cases is therefore limited. Those cases show, however, that it will be comparatively rare for the total custodial term of an extended sentence for multiple sexual offences to exceed about 30 years after a trial. Sentences of greater length have been reserved for particularly serious offending. 25. In R v McCann, Sinaga and Shah [2020] EWCA Crim 1676, [2021] 4 WLR McCann and Sinaga, two unconnected prolific sexual offenders, had received life sentences with minimum terms of 30 years. HM Attorney General submitted that their sentences should be increased to whole life tariffs. The court held, at [89], that a discretionary life sentence should only be imposed with a whole life tariff in wholly exceptional circumstances. It found, however, that each of the cases was within the category of the most serious cases of multiple rapes and merited a notional determinate term of 60 years. The court therefore increased the minimum term in each case to 40 years. 26. In AG's Reference, JRM, an exceptional case involving about 150 rapes, the court concluded that the appropriate total sentence after trial would have approached 60 years. 27. However, the court in Wilson rejected at [45] a submission that the decisions in McCann, Sinaga and AG's Reference, JRM mandated a higher level of sentencing than would previously have been considered appropriate. It held that those cases were not intended to set a new benchmark, or to initiate a general increase in the levels of sentencing for offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences, where the offending fell below the level of exceptional seriousness illustrated by those cases." (Emphasis added)
[42]More recently, in R v Sala [2026] EWCA Crim 482, a case involving multiple rape offences against four victims, the court, having referred to [27] in AYO, said as follows: “52. We consider that the decision in AYO provides adequate guidance with sufficient clarity to address cases of the present kind. It is not necessary for us in dealing with this case to attempt to paraphrase, articulate or restate anything which appears in that decision. The question, therefore, is whether this is one of the 'comparatively rare' category of cases where sentences in excess of 30 years would be appropriate because the case is 'particularly serious'.53. For reasons which we trust are obvious from the narrative of the facts which we have set out at some length in the course of this judgment, we have come to the conclusion, without hesitation, that this case is in that comparatively rare category where sentences in excess of 30 years are appropriate. Taken together, the offending against all four victims amounted to a course of conduct which abundantly deserves the description 'particularly serious'. We therefore consider that the judge ought to have applied the guidance in AYO to that finding and arrived at a notional determinate sentence as the basis on which his minimum terms would be calculated in excess of 30 years.54. We consider that although this is a particularly serious case for very obvious reasons, it is not a case at the level demonstrated by the facts in McCann, Sinaga and JRM, where notional determinate sentences well in excess of 40 years were derived before appropriate discounts for the early release provisions." (Emphasis added)[43]It can be gleaned from those decisions that in cases involving multiple sexual offending against multiple victims, sentences in excess of 30 years will be "comparatively rare" and "reserved for particularly serious offending", whereas sentences in excess of 40 years would be reserved for those at a level of "exceptional seriousness" demonstrated by the facts in cases such as McCann, Sinaga and JRM.[44]With those principles in mind, we turn to the two proposed grounds of appeal. As to the first ground, we are not persuaded that there was any error of principle in grouping the D Family offences separately from the Scout offences. Whilst there was an overlap in time, it was comparatively brief, as the Scout offences occurred over a quarter of a century. whereas the D Family offences spanned some four years. More significantly, it seems to us that the judge was entitled to treat the D Family offending as a separate category, given that it involved the targeting of a vulnerable family and the boys within it and grooming activity – letting the boys sit on his lap in his car, letting them drive, taking them sailing, taking them out, and attending at the family home - that was of a different nature to the offending against the Scout victims, albeit there were some similarities.[45]However, as we have said, the principle of totality requires the court to bear in mind throughout whether the overall sentence to be passed is one that reflects the criminality of all the offending before it and is just and proportionate. Regard must be had to the guidance set out in AYO that sentences in excess of 30 years will be “comparatively rare” and reserved for “particularly serious” offending; and those in excess of 40 years will be rarer still and at a level of "exceptional seriousness".[46]Of course, all sexual offending against children is serious, and, from the victims' perspective, there can be nothing more serious than what was done to them and the impact it has had on their lives. These gradations of seriousness are not designed to diminish the gravity of what has been inflicted on each victim, but are necessary indicators for sentencing judges, having regard to the full range of such offending that comes before the criminal courts. The range of 30 to 40 years denotes offending that is particularly serious in the context of offending that is already grave. The fact that there may be rare cases where sentences exceed 40 years does not diminish the seriousness of such offending.[47]The offending in this case was undoubtedly particularly serious. The victims were all young children between the ages of 10 and 15 in relation to whom the applicant was in a position of trust. The offences included oral and anal rape, and serious indecent assaults committed in respect of some victims on hundreds of occasions and extending over months or years. The impact on the victims has been nothing short of devastating and for those that are still alive, it continues to this day.[48]Offending of this nature clearly falls into that comparatively rare category warranting a sentence in excess of 30 years. A sentence at the upper end of the 30 to 40 years' bracket, which is a very severe sentence indeed, would, in our judgment, be sufficient to address the applicant's criminality. The sentence of 47 years' imprison imposed in the court below was not just and proportionate; it was manifestly excessive.[49]We therefore grant leave to appeal. We allow the appeal to the following extent. We quash the consecutive sentence of nine years' imprisonment imposed on Count 95 and substitute it for a concurrent sentence of nine years' imprisonment. All other sentences remain unaltered.[50]The total length of the sentence is therefore one of 38 years, comprising standard determinate sentences totalling 19 years' imprisonment, and a consecutive special custodial sentence under section 278 of the 2020 Act of 19 years, comprising a custodial term of 18 years and an additional one year period of licence. _________________________________ 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 ______________________________