The Court of Appeal replaced a wholly suspended sentence with three years’ imprisonment after allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review the sentence as unduly lenient.
The respondent had been convicted of two rapes and two sexual assaults against his wife’s sister, who was aged 13 and 14 when the offences occurred. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 3 March 2015. The court heard the sentence review after that appeal was decided.
The original sentencing judge considered seven years’ imprisonment appropriate, but suspended the sentence for five years on conditions. The judge gave significant weight to the man’s conduct over nearly three decades, which was treated as a form of rehabilitation, and to his family responsibilities.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge was entitled to give considerable weight to the needs of the man’s three young sons, who had autism and required substantial care. Updated reports said the youngest son, then aged four, also had the condition. The court noted that the children’s mother was also a carer and that the family received support from several agencies, schools and services. It accepted that imprisonment would cause the family hardship, but said that impact alone could not justify an exceptional non-custodial sentence.
The court’s central disagreement was that rehabilitation requires acknowledgment of guilt and acceptance of responsibility. The man continued to deny the offences, the court said, and had not apologised or expressed remorse. The court had already rejected his conviction appeal.
It also found that seven years was too low as the starting point before mitigation. Given the offences as committed, the appropriate starting sentence could not be less than ten years. The court then took account of extensive mitigation, including the man’s lack of previous convictions, work record, family circumstances and low assessed risk of reoffending, along with updated information about the children’s care needs. It reduced the term by five years and then by a further two years.
The court imposed three years’ imprisonment, describing it as exceptionally lenient in the particular circumstances. The judgment does not specify a separate order concerning the original five-year suspension beyond imposing the new sentence.