A 'sadistic' teen rapist who attacked two 16-year-old girls has failed in his legal bid to get his sentence reduced. Nathan John, now 21, was handed a 20-year extended sentence in November 2024 for two separate rapes committed more than 18 months apart. The sentence comprised 16 years in custody in a young offenders institute followed by four years on extended licence.
Details of the Attacks
The first rape occurred in Milford Haven in October 2022, when John, then 17, attacked a 16-year-old girl as she walked home after a night out. He threw his victim to the ground on an isolated lane, slapped her, pulled off her jeans and underwear, and vaginally and orally raped her. The rape was reported, and John was arrested. Examination of the teenager's phone revealed indecent images of children. In interview, John claimed the sex had been consensual and was released on bail.
The second rape happened in May 2024 in Haverfordwest while John was still under investigation for the 2022 offence. Armed with a knife, he dragged a 16-year-old girl down a flight of steps, grabbed her by the throat, and raped her, telling her: 'If you don't do it, I'm going to kill you.' After the rape, he punched her in the face. The victim reported the attack, and John was arrested. Again, he claimed the sex was consensual.
Conviction and Sentencing
John, formerly of Richard John Road, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, was convicted of three counts of rape and sexual assault following a trial at Swansea Crown Court. Judge Huw Rees imposed an extended 20-year sentence, noting that the offences involved degradation and violence, and that John had treated his victims 'pitifully and contemptuously'.
Appeal Rejected
John sought leave to appeal on two grounds: first, that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to his age and maturity; second, that a shorter custodial term with a longer extension period might have been appropriate. However, Lord Justice Lewis, Mrs Justice Stacey, and Mrs Justice Heather Williams, sitting in the Court of Appeal, refused the application.
The court noted the pre-sentence report, which stated that John maintained he had done nothing wrong and showed no remorse or victim empathy. The report author described John's offending as showing 'a sadistic and callous level of disregard' for the victims and concluded he presented a high risk of causing serious harm to women of a similar age or younger. The judges found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered John's age, maturity, and the report's contents, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The appeal judges concluded: 'Given the very serious nature of the applicant's repeat offending, we do not consider it arguable that the judge's sentence was manifestly excessive.'
