The Court of Appeal increased the sentence for the rape of a six-year-old child in 1979, ruling that the original sentence was unduly lenient. It substituted a five-year prison term with no part suspended.
The respondent, identified in the judgment as D.F., pleaded guilty in March 2019 to one count of rape committed between 1 June and 1 September 1979. The sentencing court imposed six years’ imprisonment, with the final four years suspended, and took three indecent-assault counts into consideration.
The Director of Public Prosecutions applied to the Court of Appeal to review that sentence for undue leniency. The appeal court said the DPP had to establish a substantial or gross departure from the sentence normally appropriate in the circumstances. It concluded that the sentencing judge’s proposed nine-year headline sentence was unduly lenient and amounted to an error of principle.
The judgment described vaginal and oral rape, gratuitous violence and humiliation. The child suffered blood loss and bruising, and adults were told to accept a cover story that the injuries came from a bicycle fall. The victim’s evidence described lasting effects, including difficulties at school, health problems and being unable to continue living in the area where she grew up.
The sentencing judge had cited the late guilty plea, the respondent’s lack of previous convictions, age and serious health problems as mitigating factors. The appeal court also took account of his age and health, and the hardship of increasing the effective sentence late in his life. It noted evidence that his medical and nursing needs were being managed in prison.
The Court of Appeal set a headline sentence of 12 years, reduced it to nine years for the guilty plea, then further reduced it to five years for the respondent’s age and health. It ordered that none of the five-year term be suspended. The judgment records that the original sentence commenced on 19 June 2019; it does not state a new commencement date for the substituted term.