Michael James Young v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 251
R v HLN
2 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1356
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 14 years in prison for rape. The appeal court said that he wasn't as dangerous as the judge thought because the judge made a mistake about his behaviour. His sentence was reduced to 11 years.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against sentence for two counts of rape.
- •Appellant (HLN), a 30-year-old man, pleaded guilty.
- •Victim was appellant's former partner; anonymity preserved.
- •Original sentence: 14 years (11 years custody, 3 years extended licence), concurrent.
- •Issues on appeal: Correct harm category, excessiveness of 11-year sentence, dangerous offender finding.
- •Appellant's basis of plea: Accepted vaginal rape in August 2019 and another between June and August 2019; claimed reasonable belief in consent for the second, later acknowledging it wasn't reasonable.
- •Pre-sentence report indicated high risk of reconviction due to appellant's failure to fully acknowledge actions and take responsibility.
- •Judge's sentencing remarks incorrectly reflected the timeline of events, using prosecution's account which the defense didn't correct.
- •Judge considered aggravating factors (offense at home, abuse of trust, domestic violence, ejaculation).
- •Mitigation: Lack of previous convictions, little remorse.
- •Judge found appellant dangerous based on pre-sentence report and reaction at sentencing.
- •Subsequent hearing under s.385 Sentencing Act to review sentence; judge found errors in the facts but not in the seriousness of the offending.
- •Appellant had made partial admissions to coworkers.
Legal Principles
Vulnerability of a victim asleep.
R v Sepulvida-Gomez [2019] EWCA Crim 2174, R v BN [2021] EWCA Crim 1250, R v AWA [2021] EWCA Crim 1877
Definition of 'abuse of trust' in sentencing guidelines.
R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, R v WVF [2023] EWCA Crim 65
Test for dangerousness under s.308 Sentencing Act 2020.
s.280 and s.308 Sentencing Act 2020
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
Court found the judge was entitled to find the complainant particularly vulnerable. However, the finding of dangerousness was quashed due to reliance on mischaracterized facts and failure to consider mitigating factors (partial admissions, time in prison, no further offenses).
Finding of dangerousness quashed.
The appellant's reaction to factual errors was misinterpreted as a lack of remorse, and other mitigating factors were not properly considered.
Determinate sentence of 11 years' imprisonment substituted.
To reflect the quashing of the dangerousness finding.