R v RDP

This application for leave to appeal sentence is made by counsel on behalf of a child who is now aged 16. We refer to him as a child since he is under 18. The application for leave has been referred to this court by the Registrar.

There was an order for reporting restrictions made in the Crown Court under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 preventing anything being published which might identify the child offender in this case. We have addressed him and spoken about him with counsel at the hearing using his first name but the case has been listed using a random three letter cipher "RDP" in order to preserve his anonymity. We shall use that cipher in this judgment. The reporting restrictions under section 45 continue until RDP reaches his 18th birthday.

There are other reporting restrictions which apply to all the complainants concerned in this case. These restrictions last for their lifetimes. The reporting restrictions in the case of the complainants apply by virtue of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Under the relevant provisions in that Act, 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. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. We shall refer to the complainants in this judgment as C1, C2, C3 and C4.

As RDP is a child we came into court and listened to counsel without wearing wigs or gowns. We told RDP of our decision over the link at the start of giving this judgment. What follows in this judgment is a fuller account of the background to the case, the arguments made on this application, our decision and the reasons for it.

On 28 January 2025 having been convicted after a trial before the North Hampshire Youth Court, the applicant RDP, then aged 15, was committed for sentence pursuant to section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the following offences: two offences of vaginal rape against C1 and C4 (committal offences 2 and 6), one offence of assault by penetration and one of oral rape against C2 (committal offences 3 and 5) and one count of sexual assault against C3 (committal offence 7).

On 18 July 2025 in the Crown Court at Salisbury, RDP, then aged 16, was sentenced on committal offence 6 (the rape of C4) to an extended sentence of detention comprising an eight-year custodial term with a six-year extended licence. Concurrent determinate sentences were passed on the remaining offences. There was a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a restraining order, neither of which is the subject of any challenge on this appeal. The usual notification and barring provisions applied. We need say no more about them.

C1 was aged 14 at the time of the offence which took place on or around 10 May 2023. This was committal offence 2 (rape). She was first contacted by RDP via Snapchat messaging. He was known to her as he had previously dated her friend. They met up at the Yorkshire Pub at around 6.00 pm and went for a walk. They were silent during the walk. C1 felt uncomfortable. They went to a wooded area. RDP took off his coat and trousers. He put his coat on the floor and knelt in front of C1 and took off her leggings. He laid her down and put his penis inside her. She froze, not knowing what to do. She said it was clear she did not want to have sex by her face as she was unhappy and almost crying in pain. RDP did not use a condom. C1 walked home afterwards crying. She bled profusely from her vagina.

In interview RDP said he knew of C1 but had never met or talked to her. He said she kept messaging him and he rebuffed her and blocked her which might be why she was lying to the police.

C2 was also 14 at the time of the offence on 7 October 2023. These are committal offences 3 and 5 (assault by penetration and rape). RDP first met C2 following online contact between them. C2 was aware he had a reputation surrounding sexual activity. RDP sent her pictures of him masturbating. She did not open these but they became boyfriend and girlfriend and discussed having sex. She felt awkward when they did so. He said they were going to meet up and that they were "going to shag". She said "Ok sure" because she did not know what else to say. They discussed using a condom. C2 told RDP that she did not want to have sex as she was not ready.

They met on 7 October 2023 with C2 having arranged for a friend of hers also to be there. They went to Tesco to buy condoms but decided not to do this as they were clearly underage. They went to a park and C2's friend eventually left. In the park they sat on a bench and RDP digitally penetrated C2's vagina. She asked him to stop and he did. She said she did not want anything sexual to continue.

They went to Tesco. RDP grabbed C2 into the disabled toilet and closed the door. They kissed. He undressed her and asked for sex. She said "no". He then digitally penetrated her and she consented to this until he inserted a second finger. She told him to stop. She said she was scared and that it hurt. He digitally penetrated her again without consent. He asked her to "give him head" as he could not "go home hard". She did so, wanting to get the situation over with. She then stopped after feeling sick. She tried to leave the toilet, saying repeatedly that she needed to go and had to be home by 4.00 pm. RDP stopped her from leaving, saying that he "was not finished yet" and said they were not leaving until he came. He pulled her head down to his penis again. She fellated him again but then asked if she could go as he did not ejaculate. He said "no" and again pulled her head down to his penis. After this, whilst sitting on the toilet with her crouched in front of him, he masturbated himself until he ejaculated on her hair. He handed her a tissue. They then walked to the bus stop.

C2 still wanted the relationship to continue even after this incident. She said that she liked RDP but he ended the relationship after he said she told too many people that she had given him head.

RDP was arrested following this incident and said that the complainant was lying. He denied any knowledge of C2 and said that he would have been at a rugby game at the material time. He was shown CCTV footage of them in Tesco looking at condoms. He then said he did meet C2 and her friend and C2 later paid him £30 so that she could give him oral sex. He denied any digital penetration had taken place and said that he had not forced her to do anything.

RDP was put on police bail with a condition not to have any unsupervised contact with any female under the age of 16.

C3 was aged 15 at the time of the offence against her on 29 May 2024 at RDP's home address. This was committal offence 7 (sexual assault). They had been in contact via Snapchat. He had dated one of her friends. She went to his house, being dropped off by her father. RDP started kissing her and touching her breasts. He put his hand on her vagina. She took it away and told him not to. She said that her mum was on her way to pick her up, even though she was not.

RDP kissed C3 and touched her breast. He asked her if she wanted to go further. She froze and did not reply. She said later that she felt powerless and scared. He again touched her on her vagina.

Messages recovered between C3 and her parents showed that C3 was desperate to be picked up quickly by them. She told them RDP wanted to have sex with her. Her father arrived soon after and picked her up from the road near to RDP's house. A message was later sent purporting to be from RDP's mother to C3's mother about the meet up. She did not respond. It was believed that RDP had sent the message from his own phone.

In interview, RDP said C3 had never been to his house and that he had never met her, but admitted that there were messages on his phone between them.

C4 was 13 at the time of the offence against her on 7 December 2024. RDP was aged 15. This is committal offence 6 (rape). They had limited contact online and in person before RDP messaged C4 and asked her if she wanted a bottle of vodka for free. She later contacted him to say she was interested and they met up. He opened the vodka and said she could have it. She took a sip. This led to her drinking half the bottle. Her memory after this was impacted. She said she felt like she was "teleporting".

She recalled going to the back gate of RDP's address. She recalled RDP kissing her, pulling down her trousers and him putting his penis in her vagina. She froze. She felt paralysed and unable to talk or to respond. She recalled looking at her phone and thinking that she would be late for the bus. She did not consent to the activity.

C4 took medication for ADHD and had never before drunk alcohol after taking her medicine. C4 photographed herself being drink on a bus at 4.44 pm on 7 December 2024 and later made notes about RDP. She identified his address to the police through Google Maps, supporting her assertion that she knew his address. The allegation was later reported to C4's school's Head of Student Welfare in the presence of another pupil.

The applicant said that he did not leave his address on the date of the offence and that he did not know C4. The police were able to obtain doorcam Ring footage of RDP walking towards the chosen meeting point and of him with a bottle of vodka. He and C4 could be seen walking back together towards RDP's house at just after 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

RDP was subsequently arrested for being in breach of his police bail by having unsupervised contact with a female under 16.

This was for any judge a complex and difficult sentencing exercise. It is obvious from the transcripts of his discussions with counsel during the opening of the case and of his sentencing remarks that the judge devoted very particular care to his consideration of all the material before him and to the appropriate sentence in RDP's case.

RDP was of previous good character. The court had available full reports from Youth Justice Services, a pre-sentence report and an additional pre-sentence report, together with an Aim3 Assessment Report (the Aim3 model of assessment is designed to assist practitioners in reviewing with the young person and their parent or carer what are the most appropriate interventions to reduce the areas of concern in relation to harmful sexual behaviour). There was also a psychiatric report from Dr Oliver White dated 19 manifestly excessive 2025. We have read and considered all of these reports, which were before the sentencing judge, most carefully. We have also seen a report from the Youth Detention Centre where RDP is currently being held, together with an Education Report. RDP wrote letters to the court and to each of the complainants which we have also read.

The sentencing court saw a number of victim personal statements, from each of the four complainants and from three of their parents. The Youth Justice Service prepared a Victim Input Report. We have read and considered all of this material most carefully.

As we have said, the judge approached RDP's sentence carefully and thoroughly. He identified at the outset the principal aim of the Youth Justice System which is to prevent offending by children and young people "and that when dealing with somebody of your age sentence should focus on rehabilitation where possible". He referred to the need to have regard to RDP's welfare.

The judge referenced the overarching guideline for sentencing children and young people. Although the judge did not specifically mention the child-specific sentencing guideline relating to sexual offences, Sexual Offences Sentencing Children and Young People, it is evident from his remarks that he had the guidance and the relevant principles well in mind.

Having identified the correct principles which apply to the sentencing of children, the judge said that he would take the last offence of rape against C4 as the lead offence, passing concurrent sentences on the remainder. It is implicit in what he said that the judge had concluded that a significant term of custody was the only appropriate disposal for RDP, who had committed a collection of such serious sexual offences.

For the purposes of arriving at the appropriate custodial term, the judge turned to the adult sentencing guideline for rape and sexual assault to identify where the offences would fall within the adult sentencing guidelines, had they been committed by someone over the age of 18. In relation to the lead offence, offence 6, rape against C4, he identified this as a Category 3A offence, since RDP had used alcohol to get C4 drunk. The judge pointed out that the offence was made more serious because RDP had been on bail from an arrest for similar offences when he committed this one. It was the fourth in a line of sexual attacks on girls and in this case C4 was aged just 13, over two years younger than RDP who had been 15 years and eight months old at the time.

The judge next considered the ongoing risk which RDP presented, reminding himself that the threshold for finding that a person under 18, with a great deal of maturing yet to do, represents a significant risk is a high one. Having reviewed all the reports and assessments the judge nevertheless concluded that the concerns expressed about RDP were such that the risk of his committing further offences was significant and that serious harm would be very likely to result. Having found RDP dangerous in this statutory sense, the judge determined that an extended sentence would be necessary.

Turning to the custodial element of sentence, the judge started by imposing the determinate sentences which were to run concurrently with the lead offence and which made it, in his words to RDP, "more serious". These were as follows: for the offence of rape against C1, two years, reducing the notional adult sentence by just over a half because of RDP's age, 14 at the time. For the rape and assault by penetration of C2 he imposed sentences of three years and two years respectively, making the same allowance for age. In relation to the sexual assault against C3, the judge described this as made more serious by the fact that RDP was older and that he was on bail for the earlier offences. He said that the reduction for age would be less and passed a sentence of one and a half years.

Turning lastly to the lead offence, the rape against C4, the judge said this:

The judge then went on to set an extended licence period of six years, resulting in a sentence which, as he told RDP, would "affect you for 14 years, that is until you are 30 years old".

Mr Dyer, who appears for RDP on this appeal as he did at the sentencing hearing, raises two grounds of challenge. First, he says that the overall custodial sentence was too long for a boy who had first offended aged 14 years and one month and was still only 15 years and eight months on his arrest for the final offence. Second, that the extension period was excessive. He does not seek to contest the finding of dangerousness, nor to challenge the Sexual Harm Prevention Order or the restraining order.

Mr Dyer stresses that RDP is still young, that he was being schooled in a single sex environment with little social contact with the other sex, exposed to internet pornography and damaging social media views. He points out that RDP's immaturity together with these influences made him more likely to indulge in serious criminal behaviour without ever seeing or understanding the consequences. He suggests that given RDP's very strict, religious background he was particularly vulnerable to being affected by damaging sexual content on the internet. Mr Dyer submits that although the judge correctly followed the guidelines and made no error in his approach, he nevertheless arrived at too long a sentence of a custodial element of eight years. He suggests that locking RDP away from ordinary contact with girls of his age for up to 14 years will make further sexual offending more likely, not less. He draws attention to the conditions in the detention centre where RDP currently is, pointing out that these conditions must undermine the prospects for rehabilitation for RDP. The length of sentence, he says, deprives both RDP and his family, who have been supportive of him throughout, of hope. He points out that RDP is bright and that being able to return to his studies within a reasonable period of time could only assist his rehabilitation, unlike prolonged incarceration which cannot do so.

As to the extension period, Mr Dyer points out that it is three quarters of the maximum, unnecessarily long for achieving the aim of reducing the danger to the public - six years being "crushing" for someone of RDP's age and abilities. These abilities might help him to complete his rehabilitation in a far shorter timescale, he points out.

Mr Culver for the prosecution indicates that this was a very serious case of repeated rapes and assaults against four separate young girls. RDP showed significant intelligence and planning, in breach of police bail. The judge was correct in going straight to a consideration of the proper length of custodial term, as custody was rightly the only option here.

Consideration of RDP in an individualistic way had correctly occurred at the point of determining the overall term. Such a consideration was not required at the outset as there was never any question of an alternative disposal. RDP’s immaturity was properly accounted for by an appropriate reduction from the notional adult sentence and in RDP's case his maturity was no different from his chronological age. He was above average intelligence with a supportive family. Mr Culver accepts that eight years is a long time but he contended that it was the appropriate custodial period for the seriousness of this collection of offences.

Sentencing for children who have committed very serious offences involving ongoing risk to the public is exceptionally difficult. Arriving at the appropriate balance between welfare and rehabilitation for the young offender, against protection for the public, is a demanding task. The advice and grounds helpfully includes a note of what the District Judge said upon sending the case up to the Crown Court. It is apparent that the District Judge, who heard all the evidence, did not believe that a two year detention and training order (which is the maximum sentence capable of being imposed in the youth court) was sufficient and that a sentence of custody of some length was the only appropriate disposal in RDP's case. Mr Dyer does not suggest that custody was other than inevitable here. That being so, we do not accept that the judge may have been wrong to pass straight to the guidance given in the child guideline, both the overarching general child guideline and the child guideline specifically for sexual offending which gives guidance about how to arrive at the appropriate length of any custodial term. The relevant section in the latter guideline states as follows:

It is apparent from reading his remarks that the judge followed that guidance here. No criticism is made of the judge's categorisation of the offences within the adult guidelines. A Category 3A rape has a starting point of seven years with a range of four to nine years. We should add that given the particular circumstances of this offence where C4 was drunk, she might legitimately have been described as particularly vulnerable in which case this would be a Category 2A offence where the starting point is 10 years with range of 9 to 13. We do not need to re-categorise that final offence in order to be satisfied that the judge arrived at a just sentence following the Sentencing Council guidance. It is right that eight years is a very long sentence for a boy aged 15, now 16, but we cannot say that it is excessive in respect of this boy, against the background of these offences, with the expert assessments made of him by youth justice and a very experienced child psychiatrist. The judge took all of that into account and he followed the Sentencing Council guidance.

We reach the same conclusion in relation to the lengthy extension period. There were particular concerns expressed in the reports about RDP's level of empathy and insight, accompanied by worries about the extent to which what he said on one occasion was not matched by expressed views or behaviour on another. In our view these kinds of concerns merited the lengthy extension period. We cannot see any reason to interfere with the exercise of the sentencing judge's judgment on this aspect of the sentence.

For all these reasons we refuse leave to appeal.