Tom Farr prosecutes in “mandatory life sentence” case subsequently referred to the Court of Appeal and found to be unduly lenient

April 3, 2025

Tom Farr, instructed by the Northwest Area Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit, prosecuted PW in January 2024 when he pleaded guilty to three Counts of rape, and one Count of coercive / controlling behaviour. Prior to this, in 2010, PW had been convicted of an offence contrary to s.2 Sexual Offences Act 2003 [assault by penetration], for which he received a 10-year sentence. By virtue of Schedule 15, Part 1 Sentencing Act 2020, upon his conviction for further specified offences – in this case, the three Counts of rape – the Court was bound to impose a mandatory life sentence pursuant to s.283 Sentencing Act 2020.

Section 283 Sentencing Act 2020 reads as follows:

(3) The court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—

(a) relate to—

(i) the index offence,

(ii) the previous offence referred to in subsection (5), or

(iii) the offender,

and

(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.

At sentence, Tom submitted that the mandatory life sentence provisions applied, and the Court was bound to impose such a sentence [unless it would be unjust to do so].

However, the sentencing Judge found that a mandatory life sentence would be unjust, and instead sentenced PW to 14 years’ imprisonment with an extension period of three years. PW was also found to be a dangerous offender.

Following the hearing, Tom advised that the sentence ought to be referred to the Attorney-General as being unduly lenient on the basis of the Judge’s failure to impose a mandatory life sentence. Following a review by Treasury Counsel and the Solicitor-General, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for consideration as being unduly lenient.

On 03 April 2025 the appeal was heard, and the Crown – represented by Treasury Counsel –  submitted that the material before the Court at sentence did not identify any realistic date by which PW would cease to be a risk to the public, and in fact, having regard to his previous record, he had exhibited an escalating pattern of sexual offending within a domestic context. Furthermore, it was submitted that PW showed a complete lack of insight into all of his sexual offending and continued to portray himself as the victim, in both the index and previous offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed with these submissions and concluded that the sentence was unduly lenient. The Court noted that the sentencing Judge had treated the imposition of a life sentence under s.283 Sentencing Act 2020 as discretionary, where it is in fact mandatory to impose one, unless it is unjust to do so.

The Court concluded that there was nothing in these circumstances, in the sentencing remarks, in the facts, or the previous offending that imposing a life sentence was unjust.

The Court granted leave, and then quashed the extended sentence and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years and 220 days.

Tom accepts instructions in all areas of criminal law, but has a particular interest in cases involving novel or complex points of law. To instruct him, please contact his clerks here.