Judgment: 2018-02-26 · Court archive

Court of Appeal reduces rape sentence to 10 years, suspends final 18 months

The court quashed the original sentence after finding its 14-year starting point too severe, then resentenced F.E. while leaving the other concurrent sentences unchanged.

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • F.E. (Appellant)
What

The court quashed the original sentence after finding its 14-year starting point too severe, then resentenced F.E. while leaving the other concurrent sentences unchanged.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal reduced F.E.’s sentence for rape from 12 years, with the final two years suspended, to 10 years, with the final 18 months suspended. It found that the original 14-year starting sentence overstated the gravity of the offence when compared with similar cases. The appeal was against sentence; the court did not disturb the rape conviction or the other convictions described in the judgment.

The Court of Appeal reduced F.E.’s sentence for rape from 12 years, with the final two years suspended, to 10 years, with the final 18 months suspended. It found that the original 14-year starting sentence overstated the gravity of the offence when compared with similar cases. The appeal was against sentence; the court did not disturb the rape conviction or the other convictions described in the judgment.

F.E. had been convicted by a jury of rape and several threats, and had pleaded guilty to attempting to cause serious harm and assault causing harm. The Central Criminal Court imposed a 12-year sentence for rape, starting from a 14-year headline sentence and suspending the final two years. It also imposed a seven-and-a-half-year sentence for attempted serious harm. Those sentences ran concurrently with the other sentences.

F.E. argued that the sentencing judge had overstated the seriousness of the rape, allowed too little for mitigation and given insufficient weight to rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal accepted the first argument. It said the rape was a very serious crime, committed amid threats and intimidation and involving a breach of trust within the marriage. But, viewed on its own, the sentence appeared out of line with comparable cases. The court therefore held that a 14-year starting sentence was too high.

The court rejected the challenges to the mitigation and rehabilitation assessments for the original rape sentence. It said the allowance made for mitigation was adequate and arguably generous, noting that F.E. had not pleaded guilty to rape or expressed remorse for it. The court also found no error in the original decision to suspend part of the sentence to encourage rehabilitation.

For attempted serious harm, the appeal court upheld the 10-year headline sentence and the reduction to seven and a half years. It found no error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the assault, which involved a sustained hammer attack the court found intentional and premeditated, or in the allowance for mitigation.

The appeal court quashed only the sentence on the rape count and resentenced F.E. to 12 years before mitigation, reduced by two years to a net 10 years. It suspended the final 18 months for 10 years on the same conditions attached below. The new sentence runs from 9 August 2014 and concurrently with the other sentences, which remain unchanged.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review