ADX, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 196 (16 February 2024)

ADX, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 196 (16 February 2024)

The original sentence of 11 years' imprisonment was unduly lenient as it failed to adequately reflect the seriousness, multiplicity, and duration of sexual offences against two young children, and the reduction for totality was excessive. A proper application of the totality principle required only a modest...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 196
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender/respondent: ADX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence increased
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Unduly Lenient Sentences Totality Principle

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

ADX

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence imposed was unduly lenient for multiple sexual offences against children
  2. 2 Proper application of the totality principle in sentencing for multiple offences against separate victims

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence of 11 years' imprisonment was unduly lenient as it failed to adequately reflect the seriousness, multiplicity, and duration of sexual offences against two young children, and the reduction for totality was excessive. A proper application of the totality principle required only a modest adjustment, resulting in a substituted sentence of 17 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence increased

Orders

  • Original sentence of 11 years' imprisonment quashed
  • Substituted sentence of 17 years and 6 months' imprisonment imposed (5 years 6 months for C1, 12 years consecutive for C2)