R v Ibrahima Krubally

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where 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 the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

On 11 June 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Leeds, before Mr Recorder Matthew Happold and a jury, the appellant (then aged 21) was convicted of three offences of rape (counts 3, 5 and 6) and one offence of assault by penetration (count 4).

On 19 July 2024, he was sentenced as follows: on count 3 (rape), ten years' imprisonment; on count 5 (rape), ten years' imprisonment; on count 4 (assault by penetration), eight years' imprisonment; and on count 6 (rape), 12 years' imprisonment. All of the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other, making a total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

A co-accused, Ibrahim Kone (then aged 24) was convicted of count 2 (rape) and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

The appellant now appeals against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The facts of the case were as follows. The offences occurred on 3 July 2021 after Ibrahim Kone had met the complainants in Leeds city centre late in the evening of 2 July 2021. Both complainants had been out socialising and the complainant in count 2 had exchanged telephone numbers with Kone. There had been mention of an after-party. Text messages were subsequently exchanged and the complainants were given an address to go to, but when they arrived at that address there was no after-party. Kone met the complainants at the front door of the property and ushered them inside. They went to an upstairs room where the appellant, who was then aged 18 years and 11 months, was present. Some consensual sexual activity took place between Kone and the complainant in count 2, but when she told Kone to stop, he became forceful and dragged her to the floor where he raped her. Kone did not use a condom and ejaculated.

The appellant's offending was against the complainant in counts 3, 4, 5 and 6. She was 18 years of age at the time and a virgin. The appellant vaginally raped her. She was menstruating at the time. He subsequently orally raped her, put his fingers into her vagina and then vaginally raped her once more. The offences had occurred despite the complainant repeatedly asking the appellant to stop what he had been doing. Some injuries had been caused during the course of the offending. The offending lasted for about 45 minutes. The appellant had not worn a condom.

A complaint was subsequently made to the police. The appellant and Kone were arrested. In interview the appellant made no comment to questions asked by the police.

At trial, the appellant's case was that he had been wrongly identified as the offender.

The complainant made a victim personal statement in which she explained how the offences had impacted upon her mental health. She had had to take significant medication to prevent the development of HIV. This had done considerable damage to her immune system and she had suffered further illness as a result.

The appellant was aged 21 at the date of sentence. He had no previous convictions.

The author of a pre-sentence report assessed that the appellant posed a medium risk of causing harm to young adult females.

Kone also had no previous convictions.

When he passed sentence, the Recorder said that the effects of the offending had been particularly severe as regards the appellant's victim. She had suffered severe psychological harm which fell into category 2 of the applicable sentencing guidelines. The Recorder said that both victims were vulnerable due to personal circumstances, because they were affected by alcohol and isolated. However, he concluded that this factor did not constitute category 2 harm. Kone would be sentenced on the basis of category 3 harm.

The Recorder said that he was satisfied that both men were engaged in an enterprise to isolate the two victims at the flat and that they were determined to have sexual intercourse with them, whether they waned it or not. Thus, there was culpability A in each case. The Recorder said that he was satisfied that there never had been an after-party at the address.

The Recorder said that the appellant had carried out a forceful and sustained assault. He said that for Kone the starting point was one of eight years' imprisonment, with a range of seven to nine years' imprisonment. For the appellant, the starting point for each offence of rape was ten years' imprisonment, with a range between eight and 13 years. For assault by penetration, the starting point was eight years' imprisonment, with a range between five and 13 years. In both cases the Recorder said that the offences were aggravated because the offenders had not used a condom. In addition, Kone had ejaculated. Both victims were vulnerable. Each offender had no previous convictions. The Recorder said that he took account of their ages and, in the appellant's case, of the principle of totality.

It is now argued on the appellant's behalf that the Recorder ought to have sentenced on the basis of culpability category B and that the Recorder did not take sufficient account of the appellant's age and previous good character.

Mr Semple has advanced these submissions on the appellant's behalf, and we are extremely grateful to him for his assistance. The submissions he has advanced could not have been better put. We have given them careful consideration.

The Recorder found culpability A because he was satisfied that there had been a significant degree of planning. The Recorder had the advantage of having heard all the evidence in the trial. In our judgment, it was open to him to find a significant degree of planning in circumstances where he was satisfied that both offenders had been party to a plan to lure a victim or victims to an address on the pretext that there would be an after-party when in fact there was no after-party, but only the appellant at the premises. The offenders must have secured the premises for their own purposes. The appellant was part of a plan to engage in sexual intercourse whether or not it was wanted. We are satisfied that the Recorder was entitled to reject the possibility that both offenders had independently decided to commit rape at the flat and to conclude instead that there must have been an advance plan.

We have also had regard to the appellant's age and previous character. There is no basis for saying that he was of anything less than average maturity for someone aged 18 years and 11 months. Nonetheless, he was of a young age. Although he did not fall directly within the scope of the guideline for sentencing children and young people, his young age was still a relevant matter.

However, the starting point for each offence of rape was one of ten years' imprisonment. There would be an increase from that starting point because there were three offences of rape in all, including one of oral rape, and the offence of sexual assault, and because the appellant had not used a condom. It is plain to us that the Recorder was entitled to go to a figure in excess of 12 years' imprisonment, before making reductions for age and good character.

We are satisfied that in arriving at a final sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, the Recorder did take sufficient account of the appellant's age. For an adult offender of full maturity, the sentence would undoubtedly have been longer.

In these circumstances, and notwithstanding Mr Semple's excellent submissions, it cannot be said that the sentence was manifestly excessive. This appeal must be dismissed.