[2025] EWCA Crim 1461

In arriving at the determinate sentence which was the basis for the calculation of the minimum terms, the judge had regard "to a limited extent" to the Sentencing Council guideline for attempted murder. He also considered a number of previous decisions of this court, including in respect of the offence of kidnap, the recent decision in R v Saqib [2022] EWCA Crim 213. In respect of the offence of encouraging or assisting rape, the judge said hat he had had regard to the Sentencing Council guideline for rape.

The judge found that each of the offences involved high culpability because of the sexual motivation for the offending and the specific intention to inflict extreme and gratuitous degradation on the victim. The intended harm was of the highest category for each offence. Miss Wass correctly points out in her submissions that these were offences of a preparatory kind. No completed offences took place. Ms Willoughby was not actually attacked or threatened in any way, and was unaware of the offending while it was taking place. However, in assessing culpability and harm for the purpose of assessing seriousness, the court is not only required to consider harm which has actually occurred, but also the harm which was intended. In this case the harm which was intended was of the gravest and highest possible kind. As the judge put it, if the applicant had found one or more genuine, willing accomplices, this plan would have been put into effect.

The judge then identified a series of aggravating factors which it is unnecessary for us to identify. They emerge from the account of the facts that we have already given.

We have also touched on the mitigating factors in passing. In the circumstances which actually existed, as opposed to those which the applicant hoped existed, the plan was unlikely to succeed. He would have had a great deal of difficulty in actually carrying it out.

The judge had before him when sentencing: the facts, which we have identified, and the previous convictions, which we have described. He did not have a pre-sentence report. He had presided over the trial. He concluded that none was necessary, and that was a perfectly appropriate conclusion for him to reach. We also consider that no such report is required now.

In addition to that material, the judge had victim personal statements. In particular, there was a statement from Ms Willoughby. That statement was treated confidentially below, at her request. It was not read out to the court. The judge, prosecuting counsel and defence counsel had read it. By agreement, the following was said in open court. The words used are the words of the prosecution, rather than the victim's own words. The form of words is as follows: