The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a 13-year prison sentence imposed after a man was convicted of rape, anal rape and assault causing harm.
The court delivered its judgment on 27 June 2017. The appellant had been sentenced on 11 April 2016, following a contested trial, for two counts of rape, two counts of anal rape under section 4 and one count of assault causing harm. The judgment does not name the complainant, who was 19 at the time of the events described.
The case concerned events on 19 July 2012. The prosecution alleged that the appellant invited the complainant to his house on the pretence of offering paid painting work, then assaulted and raped her. The defence at trial denied sexual activity and said the complainant had made inappropriate advances that were rebuffed with force.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence was unjust and disproportionate, relying on a 2012 Judicial Researchers Office analysis of rape sentencing. He submitted that the trial judge had placed the offending either at the lower end of the range for the most severe punishments or at the upper end of the range for sentences beyond the medium.
The sentencing judge had assessed the four rape-type offences at 14 years’ imprisonment before reducing the term to 13 years for mitigation. She cited the prolonged and violent attack, its humiliating nature, threats to the complainant, efforts to make the incident appear to be a fight, and its effect on her. Mitigating factors included the appellant’s difficult early years and the absence of previous convictions for sexual offences. The judge also considered eight of his 77 previous convictions, which were for assault or affray in Britain, relevant.
The appeal court said the case required a significant and severe sentence. It described the offending as involving four rape-type offences in a single incident, with additional humiliation and degradation, and said threats to kill the complainant and her mother were credible and had been effective for a period. It concluded that the 13-year term was appropriate and within the available range, and dismissed the appeal. The court did not alter the sentence.