A 16-year extended sentence for the rape of an ex-partner was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle where the judge had been entitled to conclude that the offender was dangerous and a post-sentence report documented no change in mentality. There could also be no proper complaint about a concurrent 12-year sentence imposed for a second count of rape against the same victim.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1342 [2018] EWCA Crim 1342

A sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to an offence of domestic burglary was appropriate in the case of an offender who had previous conviction and had commited the offence whilst on licence but where there was an absence of factors of higher culpability.

[2018] EWCA Crim 438 [2018] EWCA Crim 438

Given the aggravating factors involved in the sexual assault and subsequent rape of the same victim, a judge had been entitled to set the minimum term of a life sentence at over twice the upper limit of the respective sentencing guideline range. However, the sentence was too high and was reduced from nine-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half years.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1686 [2017] EWCA Crim 1686

The court reduced, from 11 years to 10 years’ imprisonment, the sentences imposed on the parents of a 17-week-old child following their convictions for causing or allowing her death. Although there were numerous aggravating features, including an attempt to cover up the circumstances of her death, insufficient weight had been given to the finding that the parents had had constructive, rather than actual, knowledge of the significant risk of serious harm to their child.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1621 [2017] EWCA Crim 1621

When sentencing an offender for burglary, the recorder had been entitled to take into account the offender’s intention to commit grievous bodily harm by breaking into his former girlfriend’s home and attacking her new boyfriend. The fact that the offender was charged under the Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b), and was not charged with grievous bodily harm or with an offence under s.9(1)(a), did not preclude the recorder from taking the full facts into account.