The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Richard Finn leave to appeal against concurrent 12-year prison sentences imposed for two rape offences, holding that the sentences fell within the appropriate range in the circumstances.
Finn had pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court to two counts: rape under common law and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981; and rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. He pleaded guilty to the first count on 25 February 2008 and the second on 25 April 2008. The offences took place on 22 July 2007.
The judgment records that the victim, identified as Ms M.M., was attacked as she walked to work and assaulted and raped in the grounds of a church. The incident lasted between two and two and a half hours. The trial judge identified aggravating features including the repeated sexual acts, the duration of the attack, photographs taken of the victim, and the fact that the offences occurred on consecrated ground that offended her religious faith.
The court also recorded the victim’s account of lasting trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed by a clinical psychologist, sleep difficulties, nightmares, flashbacks, and changes to her work and home. She returned to Poland after the offences.
Finn, who was 19 at the time, relied on a psychologist’s report describing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and problems with alcohol and drugs. The appeal court was not satisfied these were mitigating factors. It accepted that his remorse was genuine and noted his lack of previous relevant convictions. The court said his guilty pleas had some value because they spared the complainant from giving evidence, although strong DNA evidence against him meant the pleas merited little weight.
The trial judge had identified 15 years’ imprisonment as the sentence warranted before allowing for mitigation, and imposed 12 years on each count to run concurrently. The appeal court found no error of principle in that approach and said the reduction adequately, and generously, accounted for the pleas and genuine remorse. Its decision was limited to refusing leave to appeal against sentence; it did not alter the sentences.