[2025] EWCA Crim 1113

In support of the submission that the case fell within category 1A, the Solicitor General relies upon the features originally identified in the prosecution sentencing note. Although the offender did not administer alcohol to V, it is submitted that her level of intoxication helped to facilitate the commission of his offence. It is asserted that the offender was aware of the actions of his co-defendants (ie the multiple rapes over a prolonged period), that she had disclosed that she lived in a children's home, and that he could not have been unaware that she was particularly vulnerable; and it is submitted that the disparity in age is significant within the meaning of the guideline.

In oral submissions that were measured and all the more powerful for that, Ms Robertson for the Solicitor General highlighted the factors that could be said to go either to categorisation or to be taken into account as aggravating features. She maintained that category 1A would be correct but allowed that this might be a case that falls into the gap in category ranges that exists between a case falling into category 1A and one falling into 1B. Even if the case falls into the gap, she submits that the case is so serious that it was not possible properly to pass a sentence that was capable of being suspended.