Judgment: 2024-08-11 · Court archive

Court of Appeal replaces rape sentences with 16 years, suspending final six months

The court refused the appellant’s late request to withdraw his sentence appeal, quashed the rape sentences and resentenced him. The sexual assault sentences and post-release supervision remain in place.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • JMcM (Appellant)
What

The court refused the appellant’s late request to withdraw his sentence appeal, quashed the rape sentences and resentenced him. The sexual assault sentences and post-release supervision remain in place.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Appellant's home
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appellant had been sentenced in June 2023 on nine counts of sexual assault, eight counts of rape under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, and 17 counts of rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The Court of Appeal held that the headline sentence selected for the rape offences was too low and amounted to an error in principle. It quashed those sentences and resentenced the appellant.

The Court of Appeal has replaced the sentences for rape offences against a child with a global 16-year prison term, suspending the final six months. The sentences for sexual assault and the two-year post-release supervision order remain as imposed at trial. All sentences run concurrently.

The court gave judgment on 11 July 2024 in an appeal by JMcM against sentence. After the court advised counsel that it could increase the sentence, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. The court refused leave and proceeded to decide the appeal.

The appellant had been sentenced in June 2023 on nine counts of sexual assault, eight counts of rape under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, and 17 counts of rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The Court of Appeal held that the headline sentence selected for the rape offences was too low and amounted to an error in principle. It quashed those sentences and resentenced the appellant.

The complainant’s evidence was that the abuse occurred between the ages of eight and 11, frequently during visits and sleepovers at the appellant’s home. The first section 2 rape occurred when she was about eight. The court said the appellant tied her to a bed, held a knife to her throat and threatened to hurt her if she told anyone. The counts were representative of repeated offending over three years.

The court assessed a 20-year headline sentence globally for the section 2 and section 4 rape offences, reflecting the first rape and the other offending. It reduced that figure to 16 years to account for mitigation, including the appellant’s background, psychological report and family support. The court said mitigation was limited because there was no guilty plea, remorse or insight into the offending. It gave little weight to rehabilitation efforts because the appellant did not accept the jury’s verdict, while recognising his progress in education and courses in custody by suspending the final six months on a statutory condition.

The court left the sexual assault sentences unchanged. It also left the trial judge’s post-release supervision order in place.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review