The Court of Appeal has upheld sentences imposed on LD after he was convicted of multiple rapes and indecent assaults against his two daughters over a period spanning many years.
LD was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury on 12 December 2013 on an indictment containing 30 sexual offence counts. The judgment records 24 rape convictions and six indecent assault convictions involving the two daughters, who are anonymised.
The offending began when the victims were children and continued for years. The court identified the prolonged nature of the abuse, the existence of two victims and LD’s position as their father as major aggravating factors.
The trial judge imposed 15 years’ imprisonment on each rape count, with the final three years suspended for three years. Six indecent assault counts attracted three-year terms. All sentences ran concurrently from 12 December 2013.
LD did not challenge the 15-year starting point for the rape offences. His appeal instead argued that greater allowance should have been made for his age and health. He was 70 at sentencing and had several medical conditions, including diabetes, a history of stroke, osteoarthritis and an earlier heart attack.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had considered this medical evidence in detail. Reports from LD’s GP, endocrinologist and surgeon had been available, and the judge had expressly taken account of his age and health.
Other mitigating factors included his lack of previous convictions, the 22 years which had elapsed since the abuse ended and an apology made after conviction.
The appeal court said the post-conviction apology could carry limited weight because LD had pleaded not guilty, requiring both victims to give evidence and undergo cross-examination. Even so, the original judge had treated it generously.
The Court of Appeal concluded that suspending the final three years of the 15-year terms represented adequate mitigation. It found no error of principle and dismissed the appeal.