R v ZDX

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 1849 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CARDIFF (HHJ RHYS ROWLANDS) [62EN0483721] CASE NO 202403891/A1 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 11 December 2025 Before: LORD JUSTICE MALES MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL HER HONOUR JUDGE MUNRO KC (Sitting as a Judge of the CACD) REX V "ZDX" Sentence: Child Sex offences __________ 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) _________ MS C REES KC appeared on behalf of the Applicant. _________ A P P R O V E D J U D G M E N T MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL: 1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this application. Accordingly, no matter relating to either of the victims in this case 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 a sexual offence. Given that one of those victims was the applicant's stepdaughter, it is necessary also to prevent the publication of the applicant's name in order to protect her identity. This appeal has therefore been listed under the cipher "ZDX", and neither the applicant nor the victims will be named in this public judgment. 2. On 11 September 2024, in the Crown Court at Cardiff before HHJ Rhys Rowlands and a jury, the applicant (then aged 52) was convicted of serious sexual offences against two young girls committed over a period of 8 years. a. The first set of offences were committed against his stepdaughter between May 2004 and January 2009 when she was between 8 and 13 years old. In respect of that period of offending, the applicant was convicted of four offences of assault of a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; two offences of sexual assault of a child under 13, contrary to section 7 of the Act; and one offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 8 of the Act. b. The second set of offences were committed against his goddaughter between March 2008 and March 2012 when she was between 7 and 11 years old. In respect of this second period of offending, the applicant was convicted of one offence of assault by penetration of a child under 13 and one offence of sexual assault of a child under 13. c. In addition to these offences, the applicant was convicted of nine offences of making indecent images of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 3. On 14 October 2024, before the same court, the applicant was sentenced to a total special custodial sentence of 23 years' imprisonment pursuant to section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 comprising a custodial term of 21 years and an extended licence period of 2 years. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge. The Facts 4. The applicant was in a relationship with his stepdaughter's mother throughout the period of the offending against her. On multiple occasions, the applicant entered his stepdaughter's bedroom at night and penetrated her vagina with his finger. He also penetrated her vagina with his finger on multiple occasions when they had been watching television together. Although convicted of four counts of assault by penetration, counts 2 and 4 were multiple incident counts, such that upon their verdicts the jury were sure of at least 11 occasions of digital penetration on the young girl’s bed and at least 11 occasions of digital penetration when watching television. On other occasions, the applicant rubbed his penis against his stepdaughter when they had been playfighting. Again, count 6 was a multiple incident count such that on their verdict the jury were sure of at least six offences of sexual assault. Further, on one occasion, the applicant caused his stepdaughter to touch her vagina in his presence. 5. The second set of offences was committed against the applicant's goddaughter. She was a family friend who had occasionally stayed over at the applicant's home. The applicant entered her bedroom when she had been staying overnight and touched her vagina. On one occasion, the applicant inserted his finger into her vagina when they had been in the kitchen together. 6. Following his arrest, the applicant's mobile phone and various hard drives were found to contain indecent, still and moving images of children. No fewer than 194 of those images were the most extreme category A images, namely, indecent images of children involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with animals or sadism. In addition, there were a similar number of category C images and a smaller number of category B images. While less serious, those further images were nevertheless indecent images of children. 7. Both victims (who are now adult women) made victim personal statements. Both movingly described how they grew up in an atmosphere of fear. The abuse that they suffered as children has had a profound effect on their ability to function in everyday life and upon their education, their careers and their ability to form trusting and intimate relationships. Both have battled depression and anxiety. The stepdaughter developed an eating disorder and, sadly, the goddaughter found herself in such a dark place that she attempted to take her own life. 8. In passing sentence, the judge considered the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for offences of assault by penetration of children under the age of 13. He said that these were category 2 offences in that the two girls had suffered severe psychological harm and that the applicant had raised culpability because these offences were committed in gross breach of trust and there was evidence of grooming. The starting point for a single offence was therefore 11 years' imprisonment with a category range of up to 15 years. The judge noted that the offences had been committed against the stepdaughter in her home - and in some cases in her bedroom - where she should have been safe. He was, however, careful not to double count that feature of the case that was also reflected by the breach of trust in this case. He also noted that the offences against the goddaughter were committed in breach of the trust reposed in him by the girl's parents. 9. The judge then considered the guidelines for sexual assault of children under 13 and for making the indecent images. He found that the sexual assaults of the stepdaughter were category 1 offences by reason of the severe psychological harm caused by these offences and that the applicant's culpability was high by reason of the abuse of trust and grooming behaviour. The starting point for such an offence is 6 years' imprisonment with a sentencing range of up to 9 years. The starting point for the category A indecent images offences was 1 year's imprisonment, with a category range of up to 3 years. 10. These guidelines are of course for single offences. The applicant had, however, committed no fewer than 22 offences of assaulting his stepdaughter by penetration and no fewer than six sexual assaults. In addition, he had committed like offences against his goddaughter. The judge therefore considered the Totality Guideline. The judge sentenced the applicant to a total of 14 years' imprisonment, in respect of the penetrative offences against his stepdaughter, and a further 7 years for penetrating his goddaughter. The judge then sentenced the applicant to shorter concurrent terms in respect of all other offences or imposed no separate penalty, making a total custodial term of 21 years' imprisonment. The judge recognised that the applicant is an offender of particular concern and that he was required by law to pass special sentences pursuant to section 278. He therefore directed an extended period of licence of an additional 2 years. 11. Caroline Rees KC, who appears for the applicant as she did below, does not challenge the judge's categorisation of the various offences and accepts that the judge was entitled to pass consecutive sentences to reflect the fact that there were two victims. In her pithy written and oral submissions, she argues that the judge had insufficient regard to totality and that the resulting sentence was akin to that which might be passed for a campaign of rape such that it was manifestly excessive. 12. We disagree. The judge was absolutely right to pass consecutive sentences to reflect the fact that there were two separate victims. The applicant's previous good character provided scant mitigation for such serious offences. In our judgment, the judge had proper regard to totality and there is no merit in the argument that a total custodial term of 21 years for these very serious and sustained offences against two young girls in gross breach of trust committed over a number of years and which caused both girls severe psychological harm and which were further aggravated by the extreme nature of the indecent images found on his electronic devices was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Further, the judge was right to identify that he was required to sentence the applicant pursuant to section 278 and, having passed two consecutive sentences, was required to extend the licence period by 2 years. We commend the judge for the clarity of his sentencing remarks and have no hesitation in refusing this renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk