Vanessa Thomson KC and Matthew Curtis Prosecute Serious Stranger Kidnap and Sexual Assault Case

Overview

Vanessa Thomson KC of Nine Chambers prosecuted a serious stranger kidnap and sexual assault case, adopting an ‘evidence‑led’ (res gestae) approach. Following the defendant’s conviction, Matthew Curtis addressed the court on its powers to impose a life sentence in light of the defendant’s background of sexual offending.

Conviction

Anthony Croft stood trial on allegations of kidnap and assault by penetration. Vanessa Thomson represented the prosecution. The victim was a woman he had met on a night out. Several hours later, as she walked home, he followed her, pushed her into an alleyway causing her to fall, and dragged her further down the alley, placing his hands around her throat and mouth.

The kidnap was captured on CCTV. The alleged sexual assault occurred outside the camera’s view after the victim was pushed into a doorway. She escaped and immediately sought help at a nearby property. Police attended within minutes. Despite being visibly distressed, the victim repeatedly stated that she had been sexually assaulted.

At an early stage, the victim indicated that she was unable to provide a formal statement or video‑recorded interview, explaining that further engagement would be detrimental to her mental health. In the absence of an evidential account, the prosecution considered whether the case could proceed on the basis of the CCTV footage and the victim’s spontaneous early statements.

An application was made to admit the complaint to the householder, the ‘999’ call, and the first account given to police, all made within minutes of the incident. The prosecution submitted that these statements formed part of the res gestae.

Applicable Legal Principles

The res gestae principle is preserved by s.118(4)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as an exception to the hearsay rule. A statement may be admissible where the maker is so emotionally overpowered by events that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded.

In Ratten v R [1972] AC 378, Lord Wilberforce described res gestae as facts so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of a single continuous transaction. The central concern is the risk of fabrication; where that possibility exists, exclusion is justified.

In Andrews [1987] AC 281, the House of Lords identified the relevant considerations for admissibility as follows:

1. The primary question is whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded.
2. The circumstances must be so unusual, startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim.
3. The statement must be sufficiently closely associated with the events to be spontaneous and to dominate the mind of the maker.
4. Any other features of the case relevant to the possibility of concoction or distortion must be considered.

Issues of factual accuracy go to weight rather than admissibility.

The Legal Argument

The prosecution relied on a clear chronology corroborated by CCTV and police records. The first report was made within two minutes of the attack and the last within approximately 35 minutes. It was submitted that there was no realistic opportunity for fabrication; notably, the victim did not have charge on her phone. Evidence relating to the victim’s vulnerabilities demonstrated that compulsion would have been inappropriate.

The defence argued that insufficient efforts had been made to secure the victim’s cooperation and that such applications were more commonly made in domestic cases. The judge rejected those submissions, allowed the application, and Anthony Croft was subsequently convicted.

Conclusion

Res gestae evidence should not be relied upon routinely as a substitute for calling a witness. Each case requires careful scrutiny. A clearly evidenced timeline, supported where possible by independent time markers, will assist the court in determining whether the necessary temporal and emotional connection exists.

In an era of digitally recorded emergency calls and routine use of body‑worn video, independent evidence of the victim’s demeanour will often be available. Where reliance is placed on res gestae, the prosecution must provide a clear and cogent explanation for not calling the victim and demonstrate why that course, rather than compulsion, was justified.

By Vanessa Thomson KC

Sentencing

A life sentence with a minimum term of 8 years and 7 days was imposed on Anthony Croft by His Honour Judge Altham, the Honorary Recorder of Preston, on 17 March 2026. Matthew Curtis represented the prosecution at the sentencing hearing.

Having been convicted of a serious sexual assault, there was little doubt that Anthony Croft would be regarded as a ‘dangerous offender’, owing to the risk he posed of committing further specified offences. In his sentencing remarks, the learned Judge said Anthony Croft was, “not merely dangerous [but] must be amongst a handful of the most dangerous sex offenders in the country”.

The sentencing regime for ‘dangerous offenders’ has undergone several changes since its introduction in 2005. Most significantly, sentences of indeterminate length (IPPs) were abolished for new cases in 2012 and, generally, the extended determinate sentence has become the most common sort of sentence where an offender is found to be dangerous according to the legislation. However, a life sentence and indeed ‘automatic’ life sentence are available to a court for offenders convicted of certain serious offences. The criteria to be applied are now in Chapter 6 of the Sentencing Code.

The offences for which Anthony Croft was to be sentenced were very serious; they appear in Schedules 15, 18 and 19 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (for different statutory purposes). A court sentencing for such offences should consider whether having regard to the dangerousness criteria it would be appropriate to impose an extended sentence (as above) and whether having regard to sections 273 and 283 of the Sentencing Code it would be appropriate to impose a life sentence.

Whilst these offences were very serious, without more they would not likely have passed the threshold for a ‘discretionary’ life sentence, and indeed the judge found that they did not. On the sentencing guidelines to be applied for the most serious offence, a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment was the starting point in isolation. Of course, there were other offences to be considered and aggravating factors including Anthony Croft’s previous convictions. The combined effect of this was that a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years or more (disregarding any extension period) would have been imposed.

Anthony Croft committed these offences just over a month after being released from a 21-year sentence of imprisonment for rape of a child. That was an extended sentence made up of 11 years’ custodial term and an extension period of 10 years when he was subject to a licence. Having been released on licence, Anthony Croft was recalled to prison and served the remainder of the sentence in full. Therefore, he had previously been found to be a dangerous offender and – significantly for this sentencing exercise – when he committed these offences he had been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 15.

The “sentence condition” and the “previous offence condition” (as defined in section 283) were met. Where the ‘two strike’ sentencing provisions apply, as they did here, the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life; hence an ‘automatic’ life sentence. There is, however, a saving provision: unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which— (a) relate to— (i) the index offence, (ii) the previous offence referred to in subsection (5), or (iii)the offender, and (b)would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances. These circumstances need not be exceptional. Nonetheless, they did not save Anthony Croft from his life sentence.

For completeness, in this case the notification requirements (‘sex offenders register’) apply indefinitely and the release provisions will be relatively straightforward to understand. The release ‘regime’ for other types of sentences has again undergone several changes and would always be given careful consideration by our barristers.

The Sentencing Council’s “General guidelines: overarching principles” can be found here and guidance on “Life sentences” can be found here.

By Matthew Curtis

Media Reports

Lancashire Police – [link]

BBC News – [link]

Blackpool Gazette – [link]