NATHAN JOHN – MILFORD HAVEN, WALES

❌NATHAN JOHN – MILFORD HAVEN, WALES❌

Sadistic’ rapist loses appeal against 20-year extended sentence

A 21-year-old man convicted of raping two teenage girls has failed in a legal attempt to have his sentence reduced.

Nathan John was handed a 20-year extended sentence at Swansea Crown Court in November 2024 after being convicted of three counts of rape and sexual assault. The sentence comprises 16 years in custody followed by four years on extended licence.

John argued that the sentence was “manifestly excessive”, claiming insufficient weight had been given to his age and maturity. Senior judges at the Court of Appeal rejected the application.

The first attack took place in Milford Haven in October 2022, when John was 17. He attacked a 16-year-old girl as she walked home after a night out, throwing her to the ground in an isolated lane before slapping and raping her.

After the offence was reported, John was arrested. Officers also found indecent images of children on his phone. During interview, he claimed the sexual activity had been consensual and was later released while the investigation continued.

The second rape took place in Haverfordwest in May 2024 while John remained under investigation for the earlier offence.

Armed with a knife, he dragged another 16-year-old girl down a flight of steps, grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her before raping her. He then punched her in the face.

John again claimed during police interview that the sexual activity had been consensual.

Following a trial, he was convicted and sentenced by Judge Huw Rees, who said the offences involved degradation and violence and that John had treated both girls “pitifully and contemptuously”.

His appeal was based on two arguments: that the original judge had not placed enough weight on his youth and maturity, and that a shorter prison term combined with a longer extended licence period would have been more appropriate.

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds.

The judges considered a pre-sentence report which said John maintained that he had done nothing wrong, showed no remorse or empathy for his victims and posed a high risk of serious harm to women.

The report described his offending as showing a “sadistic and callous level of disregard” for the girls and raised concerns about his entrenched attitudes and future risk.

Lord Justice Lewis, Mrs Justice Stacey and Mrs Justice Heather Williams ruled that the sentencing judge had properly considered John’s age, maturity and the relevant guidelines.

They concluded that, given the grave nature and repetition of the offending, the 20-year extended sentence was not manifestly excessive.