[2025] EWCA Crim 1371

We will focus on the sentences imposed for the sexual offending.

The judge described how the applicant had groomed C1 and C2. He had taken advantage of the close friendship with their mother and the fact that the girls regarded him as a grandfather figure. He described the abuse of trust as "a very significant and major aggravating factor". He was satisfied that the applicant had had a sexual interest in young females for a very long time.

There is no issue over the judge's categorisation. He observed that counts 1 and 2 were the most serious offences. They involved category 2 Harm, as C1 was particularly vulnerable as the applicant had taken her into his home, where she was isolated from her family. Multiple Culpability A factors were proved, namely: a significant degree of planning, the grooming of the victim, and the very significant abuse of trust. The offences were aggravated by the fact that, on occasions, the applicant ejaculated. This analysis of culpability factors applied to the other offences as well.

Accordingly, the starting point for counts 1, 2 and 3 was 13 years' imprisonment, with a range of up to 17 years. In relation to counts 4, 5, 8 and 9, the categorisation was 2A, giving a starting point of four years and a range of up to seven years' imprisonment. Counts 6 and 7 were also 2A offences, giving a starting point of 11 years, and a range of up to 16 years' imprisonment.

The offences against C2 were also categorised as 2A.

The judge concluded that given the findings of the author of the pre-sentence report and the nature of the offending – particularly the targeting of children who regarded the applicant as a member of their family – the applicant would "if not forever, for a very long time pose a very high risk of re-offending in a similar way". The particular risk was to young females under 13 in whom the judge found the applicant to have an entrenched deviant interest.

The judge took count 2 as the lead offence. He indicated that the nature and extent of the applicant's offending on counts 1 - 10 warranted a movement upwards within the sentencing range to the upper end of the range, namely 17 years' imprisonment. The figure was then further revised upwards to reflect all of the other offences, including the offending in counts 11 to 13, but allowance was made for totality. The judge concluded that if he had been passing a determinate sentence, the least period of imprisonment that he could impose would have been 21 years. However, a determinate sentence would not fully address the risk that the applicant represented and thus an extended licence period of five years would also be imposed to protect the public in the future.