Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v David Mboma

[2024] EWCA Crim 110
A man was given a suspended sentence for sexually assaulting a sleeping 15-year-old girl. The appeal court decided the sentence was too light because the judge didn't properly consider how vulnerable the girl was, so they gave him a 3.5-year prison sentence instead.

Key Facts

  • David Mboma (26) convicted of two counts of assault by penetration and six counts of sexual assault after a trial.
  • Offenses occurred in September 2017 after consensual sexual intercourse, while the complainant (15) was asleep.
  • Mboma filmed and took photos of the acts.
  • Significant and inexcusable delay in prosecution (from September 2017 to October 2022).
  • Original sentence: 2 years' imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation and accredited program requirements.
  • Complainant was 15 years and 5 months old at the time of the offenses and had a disruptive childhood.
  • Mboma claimed the acts were consensual.

Legal Principles

A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range a judge could reasonably consider appropriate.

Attorney-General’s Reference No 4 of 1989

Sentencing is an art, not a science; the trial judge is best placed to assess competing considerations.

Attorney-General’s Reference No 4 of 1989

Justice delayed is justice denied; delays penalize victims and offenders.

Case judgment

In sentencing those under 18, age and maturity are particularly important (no cliff edge at 18th birthday).

R v Hobbs [2018] EWCA Crim 1003

Whether a victim is particularly vulnerable due to being asleep or intoxicated is a case-specific question.

R v Bunyan [2017] EWCA Crim 872; R v Sepulvida-Gomez [2019] EWCA Crim 872; R v Husband [2021] EWCA Crim 1240

Outcomes

Leave to refer the sentence granted.

The judge wrongly categorized the assault by penetration as category 3A instead of 2A, failing to acknowledge the complainant's particular vulnerability (age, intoxication, being asleep).

Original sentences quashed.

Miscategorization of the assault by penetration led to an unduly lenient sentence.

New sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment imposed concurrently for the two counts of assault by penetration.

Reflects the seriousness of the category 2A offenses, considering mitigating factors (age, immaturity, good character, impact on child, delay).

Sentences for sexual assaults remain as originally imposed, but are no longer suspended.

Due to the length of the sentence for assault by penetration, suspension is no longer possible.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.