The Court of Appeal has dismissed S.N.’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for rape, finding no error of principle in the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
S.N. pleaded guilty on 22 February 2023 to one count of rape committed on 11 May 2013. On 17 July 2023, the sentencing judge set a 10-year headline sentence, reduced it by two years for mitigation and suspended the final year of the resulting eight-year term on conditions.
The Court of Appeal said the offending fell within the seven-to-10-year category described in DPP v F.E. It held that a 10-year headline sentence was within the sentencing judge’s discretion, given the gravity of the rape, the victim’s intoxication and isolation, and the serious harm described in her victim impact statement.
The appeal challenged the sentence as excessive and argued that the judge had not given enough weight to S.N.’s age, plea, remorse, personal circumstances and conduct in the years since the offence. S.N. was two months past his 18th birthday at the time. The court said the sentencing judge had recorded that both S.N. and the victim were 18 and had considered the psychological report and other mitigating material.
The judges described the guilty plea as late, while accepting that it had value. They found no error in the two-year reduction for mitigation, which included the plea, S.N.’s age, lack of previous convictions, family background and life in the community between the offence and sentencing. The court also declined to interfere with the decision to suspend the final year, noting the sentencing judge’s wide discretion on suspension.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the structured sentence did not offend proportionality and dismissed the appeal. The decision concerns the appeal against sentence; the court did not alter the sentence.