The Court of Appeal has reduced the rape sentences imposed on an anonymised man who repeatedly sexually abused a child aged eight and also sexually assaulted her 11-year-old sister while he was trusted to care for them.
M.A.F. pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court to nine counts of oral rape and seven counts of sexual assault. Most offences involved K., who was eight when the abuse began. One sexual assault involved her sister, R., then aged 11.
The court recorded that M.A.F. was in a relationship with the girls’ mother and began staying at their family home. The abuse of K. started within weeks. Much of it occurred while he was babysitting or otherwise entrusted with the children’s care. It continued regularly from November 2008 until September 2009.
The offending against K. included sexual touching, attempted digital penetration and repeated oral rape. She was also exposed to online child pornography and threatened not to tell anyone. The separate assault on R. occurred in the family kitchen.
Victim impact evidence described lasting fear, guilt, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating at school and, for R., more than a year of psychological treatment.
In February 2012, the Central Criminal Court imposed 15 years for each oral rape and ten years for each sexual assault, concurrently, with the final three years of the rape sentences suspended.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the offending was extremely serious. However, it found the sentencing judge had not adequately considered unchallenged psychological evidence bearing on M.A.F.’s individual moral culpability when fixing the starting point.
The court substituted 13-year sentences for the oral rape counts and again suspended the final three years. It did not disturb the ten-year sentences for sexual assault. The court rejected the argument that insufficient credit had been given for mitigation, including guilty pleas and genuine remorse.