DP, R v [2022] EWCA Crim 57 (14 January 2022)

DP, R v [2022] EWCA Crim 57 (14 January 2022)

The original sentences were unduly lenient because the judge failed to categorise the victim as particularly vulnerable, did not sufficiently uplift for multiple offences and aggravating factors, and gave excessive mitigation for remorse. The proper categorisation and uplifts required higher custodial terms.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 57
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Offender: DP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence (unduly Lenient Sentence Reference)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted with longer terms.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Child Sexual Abuse, Appeal Procedure, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Child Sexual Abuse Appeal Procedure Unduly Lenient Sentences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

DP

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence (unduly Lenient Sentence Reference)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentences imposed for child rape and related offences were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Proper categorisation of harm and culpability under the Sentencing Guidelines
  3. 3 Appropriate uplift for multiple offences and aggravating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentences were unduly lenient because the judge failed to categorise the victim as particularly vulnerable, did not sufficiently uplift for multiple offences and aggravating factors, and gave excessive mitigation for remorse. The proper categorisation and uplifts required higher custodial terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed and substituted with longer terms.

Orders

  • Special custodial sentences of 11 years 4 months (custody) and 12 months (extended licence) on Counts 5, 6, 7 quashed and substituted with 14 years' imprisonment and 12 months' extended licence (15 years total) on each count.
  • Special custodial sentence of 7 years (custody) and 12 months (extended licence) on Count 12 quashed and substituted with 9 years 7 months' imprisonment and 12 months' extended licence (10 years 7 months total).