The Court of Appeal reduced J.D.’s sentence for rape from seven and a half years to six years, after finding that the sentencing judge had not made clear how much weight she gave to mitigating factors.
J.D. was convicted by a jury on 18 December 2015, by a 10:2 majority, of one count of rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. He was sentenced on 29 February 2016 to seven and a half years in prison, backdated to the date of conviction, and appealed on the ground that the sentence was too severe.
The conviction arose from events in the early hours of 10 October 2010 at the complainant’s home. The prosecution evidence was that, after a group had returned from a public house, the complainant and two family members went upstairs to bed while J.D. remained downstairs. The complainant told the jury she awoke to find J.D. engaging in anal intercourse with her. J.D. denied going upstairs or committing the offence. The jury convicted him.
The sentencing judge set a seven-and-a-half-year “baseline” sentence, then considered the harm to the complainant and mitigating factors including J.D.’s age, lack of previous convictions, health problems and positive character references. The Court of Appeal said the sentencing approach did not follow recommended practice: it was unclear whether the baseline sentence included the particular harm to the complainant, and the judge did not identify the amount of any discount for mitigation. The appeal court held that this made it impossible to assess whether the final sentence was proportionate, and amounted to a significant error of principle.
The appeal court therefore quashed the original sentence and resentenced J.D. It placed the case at the upper end of the lower range of rape cases described in an earlier judgment, setting a headline sentence of eight years. It then applied a 25 per cent reduction for mitigation, particularly J.D.’s lack of previous convictions and evidence of positive prior character, as well as his age and back problems. The court imposed six years’ imprisonment, to run from 18 December 2015.
The court did not decide the other grounds of appeal because its finding of sentencing error was sufficient to set aside the original sentence. The conviction was not under appeal in this proceeding.