The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of an 18-year sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to rape and other offences against his daughter over nearly eleven years. The court also amended a condition attached to the suspended part of the sentences, replacing a reference to the “Better Lives Treatment Program” with a requirement to undergo a sexual offender rehabilitation programme in custody.
The appellant, whose name remains redacted, pleaded guilty to 24 counts on an indictment containing 75 counts. The offences included rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and assault causing harm. The other counts were discontinued by nolle prosequi.
The Central Criminal Court imposed concurrent sentences of 18 years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended, for the rape and attempted rape offences. It also imposed concurrent terms of two years for each sexual assault and one year for each assault causing harm. The suspended portion was subject to conditions, including treatment while in custody.
The appeal challenged the sentencing judge’s decision to treat life imprisonment as the headline sentence before allowing for mitigation. The appellant argued that the judge gave too little weight to his guilty pleas, cooperation, remorse and personal circumstances, and too much weight to aggravating features including the breach of trust and the length of the offending. The prosecution argued that the sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the mitigation considered.
The Court of Appeal said the repeated offending, the appellant’s parental position and the harm described in the victim impact statement supported a life sentence as the appropriate headline. It found no error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of aggravating factors or in the allowance made for mitigation. The court noted that the 18-year term, with three years suspended, represented a substantial reduction from the headline sentence, while cautioning that the equivalent period served under a life sentence could not be calculated precisely.
The appeal was dismissed. The court nevertheless made a technical adjustment of its own motion to the suspension condition: it changed the named treatment programme to “a sexual offender rehabilitation programme” while the appellant is in custody. The appellant may enter a new bond reflecting the amended conditions.