R v Adam Cruise

His Majesty's Solicitor General seeks leave to refer as unduly lenient a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment passed on the offender Mr Cruise by Mr Recorder Mason KC, sitting in the Crown Court at Birmingham on 25 November 2025, following his conviction at trial of nine counts of sexual offending. The victims, to whom we shall refer as V1 and V2, are entitled to lifelong anonymity pursuant to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. No matter relating to them shall, during their lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the victim of the offences. The prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

Mr Cruise is now 37. He committed the offences against two children in his extended family when he was aged between 28 and 36 and they were aged between 6 and 13. He was convicted of four offences against V1, each being an offence of assault of a child aged under 13 years by penetration, contrary to section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They were counts 1 to 4 on the indictment. Against V2 he was convicted of two offences of sexual assault of a child aged under 13, contrary to section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act, and three offences of rape, contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act. The rapes were reflected in counts 7, 8 and 9.

On each of these occasions Mr Cruise digitally penetrated V1's vagina when she was variously aged between 6 and 8. The first offence took place in the hot tub in the presence of Mr Cruise's three-year-old daughter (count 1). The second offence took place when V1 was playing under a table at her grandmother's house, again with Mr Cruise's three-year-old daughter (count 2). The third offence took place in that daughter's bedroom, again in front of the daughter. He put his hand inside V1's underwear and penetrated her vagina and also touched her chest under her top. V1 told him to stop, but he did not. The fourth offence (count 4) took place in his bedroom on the same day as the count 3 offence. On this occasion the three-year-old daughter was not present.

When V2 was aged between 6 and 9, Mr Cruise placed a vibrating object directly onto her vagina while she was lying on her bed at his flat. That was the subject matter of count 5. When she was 11 he licked and rubbed her vagina whilst she was on his bed. That was the subject matter of count 6. On that occasion he heard his partner coming up the stairs and so made V2 hide in the wardrobe.

There were occasions when V2 alleged that he had touched her on her vagina. She asserted that that had happened on around 200 occasions, but they were not the subject matter of specific counts or of convictions.

The occasions which were the subject matter of the convictions were the following. There was an occasion when V2 was on the sofa and when Mr Cruise was looking after her whilst her mother was working. Mr Cruise pulled her onto her back and penetrated her vagina with his penis for about 20 to 25 seconds. He ejaculated onto her stomach. That was the subject matter of count 7. On 3 March 2025, whilst V2 was lying on the sofa in the lounge of Mr Cruise's home, he stroked her, removed her clothing, licked her vagina and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. He then put his body weight over her and put his penis inside her. She tried to push him off, as she was in pain, but he continued for about 10 seconds. That was the subject matter of count 8.

V2 said that she believed that the offender raped her on around five occasions in all. Count 9 charged at least one occasion other than those covered by counts 7 and 8 on which that occurred. He did not wear a condom on each of the occasions.

The offending came to light on 5 March 2025. The offender was arrested and provided a prepared statement denying the offences.

Mr Cruise had three convictions for nine offences. Of relevance were five offences of indecent assault on a female under 14, committed in 2003, when Mr Cruise was aged 13 or 14. The victims of the offending were younger female relatives. He received a 9-months' referral order, that being the only disposal available, given his guilty plea.

There were victim personal statements available to the Judge when sentencing. V1 said that she used to come to play at his house and was scared. She thought they were going to play and have fun. What he did to her made her feel sad. V1's mother said that what took place brought back a flood of emotions for her, given that she was one of the victims of his earlier offending, when she was only six years old. She said that the offender had left destruction and pain and that she herself constantly cried.

V2's statement said that she felt extremely sad and lost. She used to think that what had happened was normal and happened to everyone. She now suffered nightmares and panic attacks. V2's mother had made a statement which said that her daughter was having nightmares and panic attacks when she saw the van which Mr Cruise used to drive. She said that Mr Cruise had caused devastating trauma which was more than he would ever comprehend.

There was a Pre-Sentence Report which recorded that Mr Cruise continued to deny responsibility for the offences. He sought to blame his victims. He disclosed to the author of the report a number of traumatic experiences in his own life, including having to revive his sister when he had found her hanging, sexual abuse as a child committed against him, and the trauma of a nephew committing suicide. He was assessed by the author of the report as posing a high risk of further sexual offending and a high risk of serious harm to the victims, to his daughter and to other female prepubescent children. The author commented that despite his high risk of serious harm to children, "Dangerousness is not considered to be applicable in this case", and that in custody he would have the opportunity to address some of the risk factors which, "it is hoped will serve to reduce his risk prior to being released."

A number of references were put before the Judge on behalf of Mr Cruise which spoke of the help and kindness he showed to others. Within the references was one from his partner and the mother of their child, which referred to him as a wonderful partner, friend and father, who had a close and positive relationship with his daughter. She spoke of his positive work ethic in providing for his family.

The Recorder had a note for sentence from counsel for the prosecution and a note from counsel for the defence. Within the prosecution note the Crown made the following submissions on categorisation under the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines. Applying the guideline for an assault by penetration of a child aged under 13, the harm for each of the count 1 to count 4 offences committed against V1 was in category 2 because they involved a child who was particularly vulnerable due to extreme youth and/or personal circumstances. Culpability was category A as a result of each of the category factors of significant degree of planning, grooming, abuse of trust and deliberate isolation of the victim. Category 2A has a starting point of 11 years and a range of 7 to 15 years.

Aggravating factors, the Crown submitted, included the fact that there were four separate occasions. The previous convictions were aggravating factors and so too was the location in which the offences took place. The Crown drew the court's attention to the provisions in section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requiring an additional licence period of one year for offenders of particular concern.

In relation to the rapes against V2, the Crown submitted that they fell into category 2 harm because the victim was particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances and culpability category A as a result of there having been a significant degree of planning and abuse of trust. Category 2A has a starting point of 10 years with a range of 9 to 13 years. The Crown submitted that aggravating factors included the previous convictions, the fact that there were three separate rapes on different occasions, the specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable victim and the locations where the offences took place.

In relation to count 5 and 6 involving sexual assault of a child under 13, the Crown submitted that the harm was to be categorised as category 2 due to there being a child who was particularly vulnerable due to extreme youth and/or personal circumstances and to the fact of touching of naked genitalia. Culpability, it was submitted, was category A due to the significant degree of planning, the grooming and the abuse of trust. Category 2A has a starting point of 4 years' custody and a range of 3 to 7 years. Aggravating factors, it was submitted, again included the previous convictions, specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable child and the location of the offences.

The defence sentencing note accepted the Crown's categorisation of all the offences as falling within category 2A of the relevant guideline, but took issue with some of the factors relied on. It was not accepted that there was a significant degree of planning or grooming behaviour against either victim; and in relation to the rapes, the defence did not accept that there was specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable victim. The defence note submitted by way of mitigation that this was his first custodial sentence and that it would have a significant and detrimental impact on the relationship with his daughter. Reliance was placed on the fact that Mr Cruise had enhanced prisoner status and was assisting with the Shannon Trust whilst in custody.

At the outset of the sentencing hearing before the Recorder, Mr Cruise indicated that he did not wish to be represented at that hearing by his barrister or solicitor. This arose in circumstances in which he wished to appeal against his conviction and the grounds of appeal would involve allegations of failings by his legal team. In the light of the fact that the Recorder had full sentencing submissions on behalf of the defence in writing, he decided to proceed with the sentencing hearing with Mr Cruise being unrepresented, and no criticism is made of him in that respect.

The Recorder's sentencing remarks were relatively brief. They did not involve any recital of the facts of the offences. He had said in the course of the hearing that he accepted the Crown's categorisation under the guidelines, save that he did not accept that there was a significant degree of planning. He said he would treat the rape offences as the lead offences and reflect the totality of the offending on those counts, passing concurrent sentences on all counts.

He said this in relation to rape offences:

He then announced the sentences as follows, all of which were to run concurrently. On counts 1 to 4 he imposed special custodial sentences of 9 years, comprising a custodial term of 8 years' imprisonment and 1 year's extended licence, pursuant to section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On counts 5 and 6 he imposed sentences of 4 years' imprisonment, and on counts 6 to 9 he imposed sentences of 13 years' imprisonment. The total sentence was, therefore, one of 13 years' imprisonment. The Recorder did not address dangerousness during the course of the sentencing hearing or within his sentencing remarks. He also imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a restraining order.

On behalf of the Solicitor General, Ms Pope accepts that the Recorder was entitled to treat the rapes as the lead offences and to uplift the sentences on those counts for the other offences which were being sentenced concurrently. Nevertheless, she submits, the Recorder arrived at a sentence which was unduly lenient by some considerable margin by failing to take into account the totality of all the offending in lifting the starting point for one offence only as far as 13 years and imposing a total sentence of only 13 years for all the offending against both victims.

She emphasised the following features. The offending against V2 involved three offences of vaginal rape, where the starting point is based on a single offence. The offending against V2 took place over a period of about six years and escalated in seriousness. The rapes included ejaculation. The offender had relevant previous convictions, albeit that they were old in nature, of sexual offending against younger female family members. She emphasised that the separate offending against V1 itself had a starting point of 11 years for a single offence and that there were four separate offences against V1. V1 was a particularly young and vulnerable victim, aged 6 to 8 at the time, and much of the offending against her took place in the presence of Mr Cruise's 3-year-old child. She also points out that in relation to the offences against V1, if looked at alone, the starting point for a single offence is 11 years and the Recorder gave no reasons to explain why he had felt able to make a downward adjustment of 3 years to a period of 8 years of custody, given that there were four separate offences. She further submitted that the circumstances of this offending over this period of time against two female children, particularly in the light of previous convictions, meant that the Judge would have been entitled to find Mr Cruise to be dangerous and that failure contributed to the sentence being unduly lenient.

Ms Morris, who has appeared before us on behalf of Mr Cruise, emphasises the nature of Attorney General's References and that they are for sentences which are not merely lenient but unduly lenient. She relied in particular on R v Edwards, which referred to the scheme being designed to deal with cases involving gross error. So far as concerns the sentences of eight years in custody on counts 1 to 4, she submitted that they might be described as lenient but they were not unduly lenient. They were within the category range of 7 to 15 years, and the Recorder had to take into account all the relevant features. She placed particular emphasis on the mitigation available which she identified as the trauma suffered by Mr Cruise discovering his sister hanging in the bathroom, the suicide of his nephew and his own childhood abuse. She relied on the fact that he had subsequently formed a stable relationship. She emphasised that this was his first custodial sentence. She relied on his progress in custody and made reference to the good character references. Those mitigating factors were also relied on by her in relation to the rape sentences, which at 13 years were at the top of the category range and as such, it was submitted, sufficient to amount to a just and proportionate sentence for all of the offending.

Finally, she submitted that if as a matter of totality the sentence was lenient for all the offending, it was not, in her submission, unduly so.

In our view, an appropriate sentence for the offending against V2 alone would have been at least 13 years, given the starting point of 10 years for a single rape offence, the aggravating features identified and the multiple offending on all five counts against V2, including the earlier sexual assaults. In truth, the personal mitigation identified by Ms Morris is of extremely limited weight, and as the guideline emphasises, positive good character cannot afford mitigation in relation to offences of this seriousness. A very significant uplift was then required to take account of the offending against V1 at her young age on four separate occasions. It appears to us that the Recorder entirely lost sight of those offences when focusing on the rape offences and then simply passing concurrent sentences. Those offences had a starting point for a single offence of 11 years, and a range which starts at 7 years.

In our view, an appropriate custodial term for all that multiple offending against V1, had it stood alone, would have been at least 11 years. Of course, any uplift to the rape sentences must take account of the principle of totality, but it must be kept in mind that this was separate offending on separate occasions of a different kind against a different victim.

Taking all matters into account and looking at them in the round, in our view, an appropriate sentence for all of the offending against both victims would be one of not less than 18 years' custody, taking fully into account the principles of totality.

It follows that the total sentence passed was unduly lenient. We do not find it necessary to consider the dangerousness provisions because, in our view, an extended licence period would not be justified, given the length of the sentence which should have been imposed.

Accordingly, we grant leave. We quash the sentences on counts 7, 8 and 9 and substitute sentences on each of those counts of 18 years' imprisonment. We will quash the sentences on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and substitute sentences on each of those counts of 12 years under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of 11 years and an extended licence period of one year. The other sentences remain undisturbed. They will all continue to run concurrently with each other, so that the effect of the fresh sentencing is that the total sentence becomes one of 18 years' imprisonment.