The Court of Appeal increased the sentences for 15 rape counts to 14 years each, to run concurrently, after finding that the original eight-year terms amounted to a grave error of principle. The court left the sentences for five sexual assault charges unchanged.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to repeated rape and sexual assault of his neighbours’ young daughter. The offending took place between July 2004 and January 2008, beginning when the child was five, and occurred in and around her family home. The pleas were entered on the basis that other matters could be taken into consideration.
The trial judge had imposed eight years on each rape count and five years on each sexual assault charge, all concurrent, with 18 months’ post-release supervision. The respondent was also declared a sex offender. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for a review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, arguing that the sentences were unduly lenient.
In its December 2014 decision, the Court of Appeal said the offending was at the highest level of gravity. It held that, even allowing for the maximum mitigation, the trial judge had made a grave error of principle in imposing eight years for the rape counts. The court quashed those sentences and adjourned the matter to consider the appropriate terms, inviting further material and submissions. It said the sentence would remain as it was pending the adjourned hearing.
At the February 2015 hearing, the court considered psychiatric reports, an updated report, a teacher’s letter, updated victim impact material and submissions for the respondent. It acknowledged his guilty plea and mitigating circumstances, including a difficult childhood and schooling and the loss of a parent. The court accepted the plea’s full value despite its late timing.
The court imposed 14 years on each of the 15 rape counts, to run concurrently, describing this as the minimum sentence appropriate in the circumstances. It said a more severe sentence could have been justified. It did not interfere with the sexual assault sentences. The judgment does not state that the concurrent rape terms replace the other concurrent sentences or alter the post-release supervision order.