The Court of Appeal upheld RM’s convictions for rape, oral rape and sexual assault but quashed the sentences imposed by the Central Criminal Court after finding that the trial judge appeared to take possible remission into account. The appeal court resentenced RM to 10 years and six months in prison, with post-release supervision on the same terms as before.
RM had been convicted on three counts of a four-count indictment following a trial. The jury found him guilty of rape, oral rape and sexual assault, and not guilty of a separate count of anal rape. He appealed both conviction and sentence.
On conviction, RM argued that the trial judge’s directions risked leading jurors to believe they had to convict if they rejected his account of events. The Court of Appeal considered references in the charge to there being “no third version” and to the complainant’s and appellant’s accounts as competing versions.
The appeal court rejected that ground. Reading the charge as a whole, it found the judge had repeatedly told the jury that the prosecution had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the defence had no obligation to prove anything, and the jury could convict only if it accepted and relied on the complainant’s evidence. The charge also left open whether it was reasonably possible that RM’s account was correct or that the complainant’s account was fabricated or affected by alcohol, the court said.
The sentencing appeal succeeded on a separate point. The original sentences were 12 years each for rape and oral rape, to run concurrently, and five years for sexual assault, also concurrent. The trial judge had also ordered four years of post-release supervision.
The appeal court said the offending was of exceptional gravity and the breach of trust was exceptionally grave. It described the original headline sentence of 14 years for each rape offence as being at the upper end of the range, but said it would have been slow to interfere with the sentence on that basis alone.
The court was concerned, however, by the trial judge’s remark that he had to sentence RM “with regard to any remission which he may receive”. It said the remark could leave the appellant with the understanding that his sentence had been lengthened because the judge expected him to benefit from remission or early release. The court concluded that an error had occurred and quashed the Central Criminal Court sentence.
The Court of Appeal set a headline sentence of 12 and a half years for the rape offences, reduced by two years in line with the mitigation applied at trial. It imposed 10 years and six months’ imprisonment and retained post-release supervision on the same terms as the original order. The judgment does not state the length of that supervision in its final order.