[2025] EWCA Crim 1371

We do not consider that either of these grounds are arguable.

The assessment of the author of the pre-sentence report, which we have already summarised, the nature of the targeted offending over a sustained period, the applicant's entrenched sexual interest in young females, and his ongoing failure to acknowledge this, when taken together, provided a sound basis for the judge’s conclusion as to dangerousness. The judge accepted that the applicant had no relevant previous convictions and he was plainly aware of his age. However, these factors did not arguably counter the conclusion that the judge reached in light of the combined effect of the factors that we have highlighted.

As regards ground 2, the judge was plainly correct to take an overall approach to this sentencing exercise and to treat count 2 as the lead offence in the manner we have described. He carefully and accurately identified where the respective offending fell in the guidelines. He then rightly increased the starting point figure considerably to take account of the overall offending, which involved multiple serious sexual offences and a second victim. He made appropriate adjustments for totality. We consider that the custodial period of 21 years was in line with the sentencing guidelines and was just and proportionate, in light of the circumstances we have described.

Accordingly, we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

For the avoidance of doubt, although the possibility was flagged by the single judge we do not make a loss of time order.