The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against the severity of a 13-year prison sentence for rape and section 4 rape. The sentence also included five years of post-release supervision.
The man had pleaded guilty on 14 March 2016. The offences took place on 20 September 2014 at the home of a 74-year-old woman, identified in the judgment as Ms A. The Court of Appeal described the case as one of the most serious rape cases to come before it.
The judgment says the man, then aged 22, had been drinking and was dropped at the wrong house near his own. He banged on Ms A’s windows in the early morning. After a neighbour took him home, he later entered Ms A’s house wearing dark clothing and a balaclava. The court recounted that he used force and threats, struck her, and raped her vaginally and anally. The judgment also records digital penetration. Ms A’s victim impact statement described severe and continuing psychological effects.
At sentencing, the judge identified a headline range of 16 to 18 years and reduced the sentence to 13 years. The judge cited aggravating circumstances including the attack in Ms A’s home, her age, the violence and its effects. Mitigating matters included the guilty plea, the man’s previous good character, low risk of reoffending and a written apology.
On appeal, the defence argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the early guilty plea, the man’s youth, remorse, previous good character, rehabilitation prospects and professional reports. It also sought a partly suspended sentence and argued that the 13-year term was excessive.
The prosecution submitted that the offence belonged among the most serious rape cases, pointing to the complainant’s vulnerability, the age difference, the use of force and threats, and the circumstances of entry into her home. It argued that the sentencing judge had expressly considered the mitigating factors and reports.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had identified and taken account of the mitigation. It said the reduction from the top of the headline range was more than 25 per cent and was reasonable in light of the guilty plea and other mitigating factors. While describing the sentence as severe, the court concluded it was within the range available to the sentencing judge. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the sentence and supervision order in place.