R v Millberry (William Christopher)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Crim 2891 |
| Date | 09 December 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Crime - Sexual offences - Rape - Victim acquainted with or previously involved in consensual sexual relationship with defendant - Whether offence of equal seriousness to stranger rape - Whether male rape as serious as female rape - Guidelines on sentencing
In three separate cases the defendants pleaded guilty to rape. In the first case the victim, a 15-year-old boy, was acquainted with the defendant. In the other two cases the female victim had previously been involved in a consensual sexual relationship with the defendant. Custodial sentences of five, nine and ten years respectively were imposed on the defendants.
On applications for leave to appeal against sentence—
Held, granting leave to appeal in each case and allowing the first appeal but dismissing the other appeals, that, while rape was always a most serious offence, its gravity depended very much upon the circumstances and it was always necessary to consider the individual case as a whole taking into account the degree of harm to the victim, the level of culpability of the offender and the level of risk posed by the offender to society; and that when sentencing for rape, whether of a male or a female, the same appropriate starting point should be adopted in all cases, whatever the relationship between the offender and the victim, with the sentence increased or reduced by the presence of specific aggravating or mitigating factors (post,paras 8–13, 26).
Guidelines on appropriate sentences for rape, aggravating features and mitigation (post, paras 19–35).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court:
R v Billam [
R v M (
R v Nelson
R v Offen [
R v R [
R v Roberts (Hugh) [
R v Willis (Peter) [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Attorney General's Reference (No 128 of 2001)
R v W (
On 29 July 2002 in the Crown Court at Maidstone before Judge Williams the defendant, William Christopher Millberry, following his plea of guilty to rape, was sentenced to five years' detention in a young offenders institution. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals.
The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
On 27 February 2002 in the Crown Court at Exeter before Judge Cottle the defendant, Paul Robert Morgan, following his plea of guilty to rape, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. He was refused permission to appeal against sentence by the single judge and he renewed his application before the full court.
The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
On 20 June 2002 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne before Judge Michael Taylor the defendant, Ian Stuart Lackenby, following his plea of guilty to two rapes and one attempted rape, was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals.
The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
Deborah Charles (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the applicant Millberry.
David Batcup (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the applicant Morgan.
David Callan (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the applicant Lackenby.
Robin Johnson for the Crown.
9 December. LORD WOOLF CJ handed down the following judgment of the court.
Introduction
1 On 24 May 2002 the Sentencing Advisory Panel (“the panel”) forwarded to this court advice proposing a revision of the current sentencing practice for offences of rape. We consider that it is right that we should act on that advice. As a result three applications for leave to appeal are listed before us so that we can consider what revised guidelines should be given against the background of these applications. This is what we now do.
2 In each case we give leave and treat the hearing as the hearing of those appeals.
3 General guidelines as to sentencing for rape were given by this court in R v Roberts (Hugh) [
“Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence … A custodial sentence is necessary for a variety of reasons. First of all to mark the gravity of the offence. Secondly to emphasise public disapproval. Thirdly to serve as a warning to others. Fourthly to punish the offender, and last, but no means least, to protect women. The length of the sentence will depend on all the circumstances. That is a trite observation, but these in cases of rape vary widely from case to case.”
4 Lord Lane CJ then went on to identify a considerable number of features which could aggravate the crime.
5 Lord Lane CJ reaffirmed what he had said in Roberts, in the passage to which we have just referred, in R v Billam [
“For rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a figure of five years should be taken as the starting point in a contested case. Where a rape is committed by two or more men acting together, or by a man who has broken into or otherwise gained access to a place where the victim is living, or by a person who is in a position of responsibility towards the victim, or by a person who abducts the victim and holds her captive, the starting point should be eight years. At the top of the scale comes the defendant who has carried out what might be described as a campaign of rape, committing the crime upon a number of different women or girls. He represents a more than ordinary danger and a sentence of 15 years or more may be appropriate. Where the defendant's behaviour has manifested perverted or psychopathic tendencies or gross personality disorder, and where he is likely, if at large, to remain a danger to women for an indefinite time, a life sentence will not be inappropriate.”
6 As the panel makes clear in its advice it “retains the basic structure established in R v Billam, but with some significant modifications to take account of both new legislation and changes in the nature of the offence since the existing guidelines were issued”. The legislative changes since 1986 are the
7 The advice records that the average sentence for an adult offender sentenced to immediate custody for rape in 2000 was seven years four months (seven years six months on a not guilty plea and six years ten months on a guilty plea). The majority of sentences (57%) fell within the range five-ten years, but 25% of offenders received sentences of under five years and 17% were sentenced to more than ten years (including 10% whose sentence was life imprisonment).
The three dimensions of the offence
8 The panel begins its proposals by suggesting that:
We accept that courts should consider each of these dimensions whenever a sentence for rape is imposed. We endorse what was stated by Lord Lane CJ in R v Billam [“there are, broadly, three dimensions to consider in assessing the gravity of an individual offence of rape. The first is the degree of harm to the victim; the second is the level of culpability of the offender; and the third is the level of risk posed by the offender to society.”
Relationship and acquaintance rape
9 In its advice, the panel, took into account the findings contained in a research report which it had commissioned entitled “Attitudes to Date Rape and Relationship Rape: a Qualitative Study”. The advice discusses the relationship between offender and victim. The panel states:
“it is important that any new appellate sentencing guidance on rape should deal explicitly with the question of sentencing levels for ‘relationship rape’ and ‘acquaintance rape’ as well as ‘stranger rape’. We use the term ‘relationship rape’ to include both marital rape and cases where the offender and victim, although not married to each other, were or had been partners in a consensual sexual relationship at the time of the offence. We use the term ‘acquaintance rape’ in preference to ‘date rape’ because it covers a wider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Shofik Ali
...involving multiple victims". However, as confirmed in paragraph 1.6 of the guideline, it has been based on the guideline judgment in R v Millberry and Others [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 31. Millberry suggests a fifteen year starting point applies to a defendant who has carried out a campaign of ra......
-
R (Appellant) Hall (1) and Another Ferris (2) and Another A Walker (3) and Another P Walker (4) and Another Dan (5) and Another Stones (6) and Another Robertson (7) and Another P (8) (Respondents)
...26 As far as we are aware no other guidance was offered in cases involving sexual offences before the well known guideline case of R v Millberry and Others [2003] 1 WLR 546, to which we shall come in due course. 27 These guideline cases provide a very narrow and unsatisfactory basis for mak......
-
Public Prosecutor v NF
... ... App R (S) 283 (folld) R v Peter O's (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 632 (refd) R v William Christopher Millberry [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 31 (folld) Sim Yeow Seng v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) ... ...
-
The Queen v Camillus Paris
...class of indignities against the person that cannot ever be fully righted and that diminishes all humanity. [emphasis added] 36 In R. v Christopher Millberry [supra], Lord Lane, referring to the general guidelines as to sentencing for rape in Roberts and Roberts39 had this to say: "Rape is ......
-
A Minimalist Charter of Rights for Australia: The UK or Canada as a Model?
...least, was the position at the time of R v A, and prior to the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK) c 42: see R v Millberry [2002] EWCA Crim 2891. 56 Any attempt directly to reverse the result as it applied only to A would very likely be constitutionally prohibited, even in the UK......
-
Review: Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, Stone's Justices' Manual, Blackstone's Police Q&A and Blackstone's Police Sergeant's Mock Examination Paper 2005, the Criminal Jury Old & New: Jury Power from Early Times to the Present Day
...[1986] 1 All ER 985 rather than the more recentHouse of Lords decision of Milberry in 2003. See R v Milberry,R v Morgan; R v Lackenby [2003] 1 Cr App R 25, CA. Thediscussion then moves to a comparison of the punishment vtreatment debate critiquing the various options available andrehabilita......
-
Case Review: Sentencing
...Court of Appeal par 23 [www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/rape.pdf, accessed 22 Aug 2005]; this advice was accepted in R v Millberry [2003] 1 WLR 546 (CA)).Breach of trust is a well-known aggravating factor in South Africa, but mainly in the case of property offences (see S v Barnard 20......
-
The Effect of the Advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel upon the Form of Judgments
...2 Cr App R (S) 341 at 348 (racial aggravation).4 Ibid. at 347.5 [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 423 (environmental offences).6R v Millberry [2002] EWCA Crim 2891, [2003] 1 WLR 546 (rape). Review requiredbecause of new legislation and recent case law, e.g. automatic life sentence, maritalrape, and the......