The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of an aggregate 17½-year prison sentence imposed for two incidents involving false imprisonment and sexual offences. It held that the sentence was severe but fell within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation, and found no error of principle requiring intervention.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Birmingham P on 27 April 2023. The appellant, Ioan Lingurar, had also lodged an appeal against conviction but did not pursue it at the hearing. The appeal concerned sentence only.
The convictions related to two complainants and incidents about three years apart. For the first incident, a jury found the appellant guilty of rape and false imprisonment. In relation to the second complainant, the appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault and, after she had given her direct evidence at trial, to false imprisonment. The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences for offences against each complainant, with terms of 10 years for the first complainant’s rape and 7½ years for the offences against the second complainant. The sentences for the two incidents were consecutive, producing the 17½-year aggregate term.
The appellant argued that the rape sentence should have been placed in a lower sentencing tier, that greater credit should have been given for the guilty pleas, and that the total sentence should have been reduced further to reflect the totality principle.
The Court of Appeal described the offending as being of the utmost seriousness. It referred to the complainants being detained in cars for several hours and subjected to sexual assaults, and to CCTV showing the appellant walking behind and approaching the first complainant before that incident. The court also noted that both complainants had periods they could not remember.
The appeal court concluded that the headline sentences had not been shown to be erroneous. It said the pleas offered little benefit to the second complainant: she had prepared for trial and given direct evidence before the plea to false imprisonment was entered. It also found that the sentencing judge had taken significant account of the totality principle.
The court acknowledged that the sentence was significant and severe, but said severity alone was not enough to justify appellate intervention. As it found no error of principle and considered the sentence within the judge’s margin of appreciation, it dismissed the appeal.