RJL, R. v

J U D G M E N T Approved) If this transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

1. MR JUSTICE EDIS: No material which may lead to the identification of the victim in this case may be published in any report of these proceedings during her lifetime.

2. On 7 July 2017, before Mr Recorder J A MacAdam, the applicant was convicted of a number of offences against his step-granddaughter, who was at the material times 5 or 7 years old. He was convicted of one offence of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and three offences of sexual assault on a person under 13, contrary to section 7 of the same Act.

3. The offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Act is an offence listed in Schedule 18A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and he was therefore an offender of particular concern for the purposes of section 236A. The learned Recorder imposed a sentence under that provision of 18 years on the count of rape with a custodial term of 17 years and an extended licence period of 1 year.

4. Concurrent terms of 2, 3 and 4 years respectively were imposed on the other three counts on the indictment.

5. The principal operative sentence therefore is that for the offence of rape and it is that sentence which this applicant now seeks leave to challenge after refusal by the single judge.

6. It is unnecessary to set out the facts at any great length. The child was the subject to a prolonged campaign of sexual offending which she made clear she did not want and which culminated in the act of rape. The Recorder in sentencing remarks which are a model of succinct clarity following a trial at which findings of fact were required observed that the applicant had first chanced his arm with the victim and then gradually as he had seen what he could get away with doing increased the intrusiveness of his offending. He had given an absurd account of what he had done at the trial but the Recorder said he was not to be penalised for having denied the offence.

7. The Recorder made a finding that there was sufficient psychological harm to the victim to put this offence to the top end of category 2 and at culpability A. He found that there were aggravating features involving grooming and abuse of trust. There was also a previous conviction which significantly aggravated the position. The applicant had a conviction for gross indecency with a child which dated back to 2000 but which was, given the circumstances of this offending, nevertheless a relevant consideration.

8. The Recorder then proceeded to impose a sentence based upon a custodial term which is at the top of the range which he had determined, properly, was the correct range. He was entitled to do that.

9. The single judge said in refusing leave: "It is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentence passed on Count 4, after a trial, should properly reflect the totality of offending on all counts, where concurrent rather than consecutive sentences were passed on Counts 1-3. The judge placed the individual Count 4 within category 2 as agreed, and not within category 1, but then increased the sentence to the top of the range within category

2. He was unarguably right to do so to reflect the appreciable aggravating factors, and the course he took also enabled the other counts to be reflected."

10. We entirely agree with those succinct and forthright observations and this application is therefore refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.