John, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 486 (26 March 2026)

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Crim 486 CASE NO 202404354/A4 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION SITTING AT MOLD CROWN COURT ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SWANSEA (HHJ HUW REES) [63CH0015023 & 63CH0077124] The Law Courts Raikes Lane Mold Flintshire CH7 1AE 26 March 2026 B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE LEWIS MRS JUSTICE STACEY MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS ____________________ REX V NATHAN JOHN ____________________ Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ____________________ NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS: The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. The prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. On 18 October 2024 in the Crown Court at Swansea, before HHJ Huw Rees and a jury, the applicant (then aged 19) was convicted of counts 1 to 5 and count 7 on the trial indictment. He changed his pleas to guilty for counts 1 to 3 of the severed indictment. Counts 1 to 5 on the trial indictment concerned the rape and sexual assault of his first victim ("complainant 1"). Count 7 related to the rape of a second victim ("complainant 2"). The severed indictment concerned indecent image offences. On 18 November 2024, before the same judge, the applicant was sentenced as follows: (i) Concurrent extended sentences comprising a 16 years' custodial term and a 4-year extended licence were imposed in relation to the three counts of rape (counts 1, 2 and 7); (ii) Concurrent determinate sentences were imposed for the other sexual offences committed in relation to complainant 1: 5 years' detention for the offence of assault by penetration (count 3); 2 years' detention for the offence of sexual assault (count 4); and 5 years' detention for causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (count 5); and (iii) Concurrent determinate sentences were passed in relation to the severed indictment offences: 3 months' and 2 months' detention respectively for the offences of making indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and 1 month's detention for possessing an extreme pornographic image, contrary to section 63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Leave to appeal was refused by the Single Judge and the applicant has renewed his application for leave. The material circumstances The applicant was born on 17 February 2005. He was of previous good character. Complainant 1 was aged 16 at the time of the offences. On Saturday 1 October 2022 into Sunday 2 October, she spent the evening at a club in Milford Haven. She knew the applicant and they kissed and danced inside the club. She agreed to let him walk her home and, as he did so, he asked for a kiss. She agreed to kiss him but she was not interested in anything else. When they reached an isolated lane the applicant threw complainant 1 on the ground having taken his own trousers down. The applicant then got on top of complainant 1, slapped her across the face and put his hand over her mouth. He pulled her jeans and her underwear off, he then forced his penis inside her vagina (count 1). As she was being raped the complainant could not breathe and she thought she was going to die. The applicant grabbed her by the hair and pulled her to her knees. She was deaf and had cochlear implants in her ear. The applicant pulled her hearing aids out. She begged him to give them back and promised that she would not say anything to anyone about what he had just done if he gave her the hearing aids back. He did give them back to her but not before he told her to open her mouth and he forced his penis inside it (count 2). He told her "to play with my balls" and forced her hand onto his testicles. He told her to "put a finger up my arse" and made her insert one of her fingers into his anus (count 5). He pushed her back on the ground and forced one of his fingers inside her vagina (count 3) and put his mouth on her vagina (count 4). At some point he pulled her bra down and licked her nipples. He then made her open her mouth again and forced his penis inside for a second time and then ejaculated inside her mouth (count 2, continuation of the oral rape). After he ejaculated he slapped her again and said "swallow it", which she did. The attack then ended and the applicant kept asking the complainant: "What did I just do?" He apologised and said he had a girlfriend. He accused complainant 1 of spiking his drink and threatened to kill himself. Complainant 1 was terrified and promised she would not tell anyone. She then ran home and told her mother and her mother's partner what had happened and they called the police. The applicant was arrested and interviewed. He claimed that what had happened was consensual. He was released under investigation. Whilst he was still on police bail under investigation on 16 May 2024, he raped complainant 2, who was also aged 16 at the time of the offence. On 16 May, she was out with some friends in Haverfordwest when she saw the applicant, who was someone she knew. They decided to walk to Tesco together and the applicant told her she was pretty. He led her to a car park and started kissing her. She pulled away from him. He grabbed her throat and she started screaming. The applicant dragged her down some steps and started pulling her trousers down. She was screaming "get off me, get off me" and crying. He bent her over the railing and tried to force his penis inside her vagina. At first he was unsuccessful but then he did manage to place his penis inside her vagina and he raped her from behind. He said to her: "If you don't do it, I'm going to kill you". Earlier during their walk he had showed her a knife that he was carrying. As he raped her she pleaded with him to stop. He told her to shut up and covered her mouth with his hand as he was raping her. When he stopped he punched her in the face causing her to fall. He then ran away. Complainant 2 made disclosures to her family that night and the police were called. The applicant was arrested and interviewed and claimed that what had happened had been consensual. On 2 October 2022, following the applicant's arrest in relation to the rape of complainant 1, his mobile phone was seized and examined. Two indecent still images of children, one of category B and one of category C, were found in an inaccessible area of the device. There was also an accessible video involving sexual activity between a person and an animal. A pre-sentence report ("PSR") was prepared by the Probation Service following a 2-hour interview with the applicant. Throughout the interview he maintained he had done nothing wrong and that the sexual activity was consensual. He showed no remorse or victim empathy. As the author commented, whilst it did not appear that the applicant had gone out on either evening with the intention of raping someone "as soon as the opportunity of a vulnerable female that he was able to isolate arose he took advantage of the situation with the aim of satiating his perceived and deviant sexual needs or perhaps of materialising undisclosed deviant sexual rape fantasies". She described his offending as showing "a sadistic and callous level of disregard" for the victims. The author noted the applicant needed to accept responsibility for his behaviour in order for him to develop insight and understanding of his motivation and the contributory factors and it was currently unclear whether he would do this. She concluded he presented a high risk of causing serious harm to women of a similar age to himself and potentially also to those a great deal younger. She observed the applicant seemed "quite immature" and presented as being "far younger than his chronological age would suggest". The judge's sentence The judge noted that the offences against both victims included features of degradation and violence and that the applicant had treated his victims "pitifully and contemptuously". The applicant was 17 years and 9 months old at the time of the offences involving complainant 1. The judge referred to her Victim Personal Statement in which she described how frightened she had been during the incident. When the applicant took her hearing aids, she had felt isolated and "the most vulnerable I have ever been". She described the very significant impact the incident had had upon her health, her activities, her ability to interact with others and her wellbeing. Complainant 2 had not made a Victim Personal Statement. The judge observed that the applicant's unhealthy interest in sexual matters was further confirmed by the indecent image offences. The judge referred to the Sentencing Council definitive guideline on children and young persons particularly paragraph 6.46. This states that when considering the relevant adult guideline, the court may feel it appropriate to apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15 – 17, but that this was only a rough guide which was not to be applied mechanistically. The emotional and developmental age and maturity of the offender was of at least equal importance to their chronological age. The judge also referred to R v Asi-Akram [2005] EWCA Crim 1543 , an unsuccessful appeal involving a 17-year-old appellant who was sentenced to 14 years' detention having pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one count of attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely rape. The judge noted the Court of Appeal had dealt with the question of age in similar circumstances to the present case. He cited the following passage: "20. In our judgment, the observation of this Court in Millberry [[2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 25] at paragraph 30, that in the rape cases the sentence should, in the case of young offenders, be 'significantly shorter' than otherwise be the case of adults is a broadly general observation, which nevertheless admits of exceptions. It was not, in our judgment, designed to be one of invariable and inevitable application. In all such cases youth will always be a relevant consideration. But the extent to which it calls for a reduction (and, specifically, a 'significant' reduction), by comparison to a sentence which otherwise would have been passed on an adult, nevertheless remains to be assessed by the sentencing court by reference to the circumstances of the case. There are cases of rape where the youth of the defendant can be said, in one sense at least, to play an operative part in the offence. But this most emphatically is not such a case. We bear in mind, too, that there may be greater prospects of rehabilitation in the case of younger offenders as compared to older and perhaps more hardened offenders. We do also bear in mind the point, well made by Mr Lody, that it is a particularly daunting matter, as far as a young person is concerned, if a very long sentence is imposed. 21. However, as against that, in this particular case there is to be borne in mind the very important consideration that, in the context of a campaign of particularly nasty and violent rapes, the appellant was found by the judge (and as is accepted) to be a serious danger to women. Overall, while the sentence may have been a severe one, in our view it was justifiably so. We dismiss this appeal." The judge accepted that some allowance had to be made for the applicant's chronological age at the time of the first group of offences and his level of maturity as described in the PSR. However, he was nearly 18 years old at the time of these offences and he had gone on 17 months later, when aged 19, to commit another rape in almost identical circumstances. The judge considered that "the nature and extent of your offending" outweighed any other consideration. The judge treated the three rape offences as the lead offences. All trial indictment offences involved category 2 harm under the guidelines. In relation to complainant 1, the following features were present: severe psychological or physical harm, additional degradation and humiliation particularly the removal of her hearing aids, prolonged detention given the multiplicity of offending in a sustained incident, violence or threats of violence going beyond that which is inherent in the offence and the victim's particular vulnerability as she was isolated from her friends and relying on the applicant to walk her home. The count 1 offence therefore fell into category 2B with a starting point of 8 years and an offence range of 7 to 9 years. There was an aggravating feature namely, the specific targeting by the applicant of a particularly vulnerable victim. Count 2 was also a category 2B offence and there was the additional aggravating feature of ejaculation into the victim's mouth. Count 7, the vaginal rape in respect of complainant 2, had the same harm factors as counts 1 and 2. This was also a category 2B offence. There was the statutory aggravating factor that the offence was committed when the applicant had been released on investigation into the offences against complainant 1. The other aggravating factors were ejaculation and the specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable victim. There was very little by way of mitigation other than the applicant's age. The applicant's previous good character only allowed for a modest degree of mitigation given the nature and extent of his offending. The judge declined to pass a life sentence given the applicant's age. Referring to the facts of the offences and the content of the PSR, the judge found that the applicant posed a danger to young girls and young women and indicated he would pass an extended sentence in respect of counts 1, 2 and 7. No issue is taken with the judge's assessment of dangerousness or with his conclusion that an extended sentence was required in the circumstances. The judge explained he had regard to the principle of totality. He would take account of this, first, by treating the rape offences as the lead offences and passing concurrent sentences for the other offences, and secondly, in the custodial term he would impose. He indicated that if they had stood alone, he would have passed a sentence of 8 years' detention in respect of counts 1 and 2, reduced from 9 years because of the applicant's age and a sentence of 9 years in respect of count 7. The grounds of appeal The grounds of appeal drafted by counsel, Jon Tarrant, who represented the applicant below, raise two grounds. First, that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the applicant's age and maturity, both at the time of the commission of the offences and at sentence. Secondly, that in considering totality, a shorter custodial term may have been appropriate with a longer extension period utilised to reflect the seriousness of the offending and concerns about the applicant's entrenched behavioural attitudes. In relation to the first of these grounds, emphasis is placed on the passages in the PSR we have already referred to and it is said that the judge's reduction of a year to reflect the applicant's age at the time of the count 1 and count 2 offences was insufficient. Analysis and conclusion We do not accept that the applicant's grounds are arguable. There is no complaint about the judge's assessment of where the lead offences fell within the guideline for adult offenders, nor any issue taken with his identification of the aggravating factors or the limited weight he gave to the applicant's previous good character. The judge's sentencing remarks show that he gave careful consideration to the applicant's age, maturity and the content of the PSR. He also had the material parts of the sentencing guideline on children and young persons well in mind. For the reasons he gave, he was entitled to draw parallels with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Asi-Akram and to make a limited reduction from the custodial term he arrived at under the guideline for adult offending, in light of the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the risk he posed to young women. Furthermore, the judge had the benefit of seeing the applicant during a five-day trial in which he gave evidence for a day and he was well placed to form a view as to the applicant's maturity and as to the appropriate level of reduction to take account of his age. The judge's sentencing remarks (which we have already referred to) show that he was appropriately mindful of totality, both in passing concurrent sentences when, arguably, he could have imposed a consecutive sentence in respect of count 7 and in the overall custodial term of 16 years that he arrived at. There was no error of principle in the judge's approach. Given the very serious nature of the applicant's repeat offending, we do not consider it arguable that the judge's sentence was manifestly excessive. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII