The Court of Appeal has increased the sentence imposed on a man who sexually abused his two younger sisters over several years, finding that the original overall penalty did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending.
The court quashed the sentence imposed at trial and resentenced C.R. on 18 May 2023. It substituted a seven-year prison sentence on the rape count concerning complainant LR, suspending the final year on the same terms set by the sentencing judge. The other sentences were left as imposed. C.R. remains on the sex offenders register for life.
The 48-count indictment concerned 18 rape and 18 sexual assault counts involving LR, and one rape and 10 indecent assault counts involving DP. C.R. pleaded guilty to four counts; the remaining counts were taken into consideration. The pleas concerning LR, and the indecent assault counts concerning DP, were representative pleas.
C.R. was 14 when the offending began and 19 when it ended. The court said 18 months of offending occurred after he turned 18. DP was aged between nine and 11 during the abuse; LR was between six and 10. The court heard that the abuse involved repeated sexual assaults and rape. The offending came to light after the sisters spoke by phone in December 2018. C.R. later admitted the abuse to family members.
The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences, including six years for raping LR, with the final 18 months suspended, and four and a half years for raping DP. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for a review on grounds of undue leniency, arguing that the overall sentence gave too much weight to mitigation and insufficient weight to the repeated offending, the sisters’ young ages and the breach of trust.
The Court of Appeal said the nine-year headline sentence set for the rape of LR was lenient but not, by itself, unduly lenient, taking account of C.R.’s age and maturity during the offending. It also accepted that the guilty pleas, remorse, personal circumstances and difficulties in custody were relevant to mitigation. But the court considered the reduction for mitigation and the suspended portion of the original sentence too great. It concluded that the overall penalty was a substantial departure from the norm and an error of principle.
On resentencing, the court retained the nine-year pre-mitigation sentence for the rape of LR and set the post-mitigation term at seven years, with the final year suspended. The court said this sentence properly accounted for the overall offending and C.R.’s personal circumstances.