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.
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE NICHOLAS HEATHCOTE WILLIAMS) (T20237170, T20237088)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LADY JUSTICE ANDREWS
MR JUSTICE JAY
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON
REX
v
JOHN MARK COOPER
(The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies.)
__________
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)
_________
Non-counsel application
_________
APPROVED JUDGMENT
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. 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.
The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal on the papers.
In March 2024 the applicant was convicted of rape, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of coercion and control arising from a brief relationship with the complainant. He received a determinate sentence of 8 years. In October 2024 he was convicted of rape, two counts of strangulation, anal rape, assault by penetration with a pole, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and coercion and control arising from a second brief relationship. For the two sets of offending, he was sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment and to an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising of a custodial term of 10 years and an extended licence period of 7 years, to be served consecutively. The total custodial period was 18 years for the offending against two women.
The grounds of appeal were that the imposition of consecutive sentences led to a sentence that was manifestly excessive and did not take sufficient account of the principle of totality.
For the reasons given by the single judge we refuse leave, not least because the offending was against two different women and arose in the course of two different relationships.
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