202501950 A5 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1047

When pleading guilty before the Magistrates to Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5, the Offender indicated not guilty pleas to 4 offences of rape of a child under 13. Those offences were sent to the Crown Court for trial. It is plain from the transcript of a hearing on 28 March 2025 at which the prosecution opened the case and Mr Stables mitigated on behalf of the Offender that there were significant discussions between the prosecution and the defence as a result of which Counts 5 and 6 were preferred and no evidence was offered on the original four charges of rape. It is also plain from the transcript that the case had been identified as one of considerable difficulty from a long way out, such that there had been multiple hearings, the purpose of which was (as the Recorder put it) to try to find a way forward and to finding a solution. We do not have specific details about what was involved in this searching for a way forward save that the end result was that the Offender offered pleas that were acceptable to the Crown and accepted, V did not have to give evidence, and numerous reports on the Offender were obtained for the assistance of the Court in sentencing him.

The Crown opened the case by reference to the adult guidelines for sexual offences. On the Offender’s behalf, Mr Stables entered a highly competent plea in mitigation in which he concentrated, correctly, on the guideline for Sexual offences - Sentencing children and young people, emphasising the distinctly different approach mandated by that guideline when compared with the adult guidelines for sexual offences. He placed considerable weight on the evidence in the reports to the effect that the Offender had been befriended online by older people who, in his submission, had been toying with the Offender and looking to see how far they could get him to go and act on their behalf, relying on the hold they now had over him. He submitted that the reports showed a vulnerable and immature 16-year-old whose autism/ADHD and lack of support in his upbringing contributed materially to his difficulties. He relied upon the progress that the Offender had made in holding down a job and submitted that the prospects of rehabilitation were very strong.

Having heard the prosecution’s opening and Mr Stables’ mitigation, the Recorder then adjourned the case to 8 May 2025, as he put it, to maximise the time available to him to think about the sentence he should impose. In announcing his decision to adjourn, the Recorder acknowledged that the exercise he had to undertake was exceptionally difficult because, on the one hand, the Offender had committed serious crimes towards the very young V, while on the other he had to sentence the Offender as if he were a 16-year-old.

The Recorder ultimately sentenced on the basis that the Offender was entitled to a reduction of 25% for his plea to Counts 5 and 6 and that he was entitled to a full 1/3 reduction for his timely plea on the other charges. There is no challenge to that assessment.