R v M

R v M

Although the sentencing judge erred in not reflecting the offending against AB and in the categorisation of the offences against CD, the final sentence of 14 years' imprisonment was lenient but not unduly so, and thus does not warrant interference.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Reference dismissed; sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Abuse of Trust, Vulnerability of Victims, Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Abuse of Trust Vulnerability of Victims Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

M

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Appeal Against Sentence Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the offences against CD were wrongly categorised under sentencing guidelines
  3. 3 Whether the sentence reflected the totality of criminality, including offences against both victims

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge erred in not reflecting the offending against AB and in the categorisation of the offences against CD, the final sentence of 14 years' imprisonment was lenient but not unduly so, and thus does not warrant interference.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • Leave to refer granted to the Solicitor General.
  • Sentence of 14 years' imprisonment to stand unaltered.