R v Abbas Abbass
[2023] EWCA Crim 540
R v James Routledge
22 November 2022
[2022] EWCA Crim 1839
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 18 years in prison for raping three different women. He appealed the sentence, but the court said the sentence was fair because he had repeatedly raped multiple victims, and that his age and personal problems didn't excuse his crimes.
Key Facts
- •James Routledge (appellant), aged 23, pleaded guilty to three counts of rape against three different victims (C1, C2, C3).
- •The rapes occurred over a period of time, with the first incident taking place during a six-year relationship with C1.
- •The second rape involved C2 after an argument at a pub, and the third rape involved C3 while she was asleep.
- •The appellant had previous convictions for assault and harassment in 2019.
- •The judge sentenced Routledge to an extended sentence of 18 years (15 years custody, 3 years extended license) for count 8 (rape of C3), with concurrent sentences of 37 and 53 months for the other two counts of rape (Counts 3 and 7 respectively).
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Reporting restrictions apply to prevent the identification of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, Section 3
Sentencing Guidelines for Rape: Category ranges for sentencing are established based on the severity of the offence.
Sentencing Guidelines on Rape
Totality Principle in Sentencing: The overall sentence must be just and proportionate, considering all offences.
Sentencing Act 2020
Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 10, paragraph 21(1): Governs the revocation of community orders.
Sentencing Act 2020
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's categorization of the offences and application of the totality principle to be correct. While mitigating factors were considered, the seriousness of the repeated offences against multiple victims outweighed them.
18-year extended sentence upheld.
The Court considered the appellant's age and personal circumstances, but found that these did not provide sufficient mitigation in light of the severity and repetition of the crimes.
Irregular revocation of a community order noted, but deemed inconsequential.
The judge revoked a community order, but the Court of Appeal noted this action was likely unlawful under the Sentencing Act 2020.