Background
John Mark Cooper was convicted on two separate occasions at the Crown Court at Woolwich of serious sexual and violent offences against two different women arising from two brief relationships. In March 2024 he was convicted of rape, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and coercion and control relating to the first complainant, receiving a determinate sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment. In October 2024 he was convicted of a further rape, anal rape, two counts of strangulation, assault by penetration with a pole, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and coercion and control relating to a second complainant.
For the totality of his offending, Cooper was sentenced to a standard determinate term of 8 years and an extended sentence of 17 years (comprising a 10-year custodial term and a 7-year extended licence period), those sentences to run consecutively. The combined custodial period across both sets of offending amounted to 18 years.
Cooper sought leave to appeal his sentence on the grounds that the imposition of consecutive sentences produced a total that was manifestly excessive and failed to give adequate weight to the sentencing principle of totality. The single judge refused leave on the papers, and Cooper renewed his application before the full court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Jay, and Mrs Justice Thornton) refused the renewed application for leave to appeal. The court adopted the reasoning of the single judge and found no arguable basis on which the total sentence of 18 years could be said to be manifestly excessive.
The court emphasised that the consecutive structure of the sentences was appropriate because the offending was directed against two different women and arose from two entirely separate relationships. The totality principle did not require a reduction in the overall sentence where the criminality was distinct in nature, victim, and context.
Key Takeaways
- The totality principle does not automatically require concurrent or reduced sentences merely because multiple sentencing episodes are combined; consecutive sentences remain justified where the offending involves different victims and separate courses of criminal conduct.
- An extended sentence (custodial term plus extended licence period) imposed for the more serious tranche of offending can lawfully run consecutively to a standard determinate sentence for earlier offending against a different victim.
- The reporting restriction under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies, prohibiting publication of any matter likely to identify either complainant during her lifetime.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that courts will uphold lengthy consecutive sentences in cases of serial domestic and sexual violence where each tranche of offending targets a distinct victim. Defence arguments that aggregate sentences breach the totality principle are unlikely to succeed where the judge can point to separate relationships, separate victims, and separate patterns of abuse.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that extended sentences — with their substantial licence tail — can be stacked consecutively against standard determinate terms without offending totality, provided the overall sentence remains proportionate to the full criminality before the court.