AYO & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1271 (30 September 2022)

AYO & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1271 (30 September 2022)

The Court held that while the offending in each case was extremely grave and warranted substantial custodial sentences, the principle of totality and proportionality required careful adjustment of the overall sentence. Sentences exceeding 30 years' custody for multiple sexual offences are rare and reserved for the most exceptional cases. In several appeals, the original sentences were manifestly excessive and not just or proportionate. The Court substituted lower custodial terms and adjusted the structure of sentences to comply with statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1271
Parties
Appellant/applicant: AYO; Appellant/applicant: BKL; Appellant/applicant: Mark Ashley Burgess; Appellant/applicant: BCJ; Appellant/applicant: Abdul Hasib Elahi; Appellant/applicant: AVJ; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied
Legal Topics
Extended Determinate Sentences, Special Custodial Sentences, Sexual Offences, Dangerousness Assessment, Totality Principle, Sentencing Guidelines, Protection of the Public
Criminal Law Sentencing Extended Determinate Sentences Special Custodial Sentences Sexual Offences Dangerousness Assessment Totality Principle Sentencing Guidelines +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AYO

Appellant/applicant

BKL

Appellant/applicant

Mark Ashley Burgess

Appellant/applicant

BCJ

Appellant/applicant

Abdul Hasib Elahi

Appellant/applicant

AVJ

Appellant/applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extended determinate and special custodial sentences imposed for grave sexual offending were manifestly excessive or failed to reflect the principle of totality
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judges correctly applied the statutory framework and sentencing guidelines for sexual offences, including assessment of dangerousness and the necessity for extended sentences
  3. 3 Whether the structure and length of sentences, including consecutive and concurrent terms, were just and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while the offending in each case was extremely grave and warranted substantial custodial sentences, the principle of totality and proportionality required careful adjustment of the overall sentence. Sentences exceeding 30 years' custody for multiple sexual offences are rare and reserved for the most exceptional cases. In several appeals, the original sentences were manifestly excessive and not just or proportionate. The Court substituted lower custodial terms and adjusted the structure of sentences to comply with statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied

Orders

  • AYO: Extended sentences of 40 years on specified counts quashed and substituted with extended sentences of 34 years (30 years' custody, 4 years' licence); other sentences unaltered.
  • BKL: Sentences on specified counts quashed and substituted with special custodial sentences of 14 years' custody plus 1 year licence, structured to total 28 years' custody and 2 years' licence; other sentences unaltered.