The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals against sentence by D T, leaving in place consecutive sentences totalling 22 years for rape and assault offences committed against two women in 2013 and 2014.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 5 June 2018, considered a 12-year sentence imposed in February 2016 for offences against G M, and a further sentence imposed in May 2017 for offences against R K, the appellant’s former partner. The sentences arising from the second case were ordered to run consecutively to the earlier sentence.
The first appeal concerned six offences committed against G M on 4 January 2014: three rape offences, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault and assault causing harm. The sentencing judge set a 14-year headline sentence and reduced it to 12 years after considering mitigation. The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s background and other mitigating factors, including his late expression of remorse. It found no error of principle and dismissed that appeal.
The second appeal concerned two rapes and an assault against R K. The appellant pleaded guilty on the morning of trial to the July 2013 rape and assault, but contested the rape charge arising from a later incident and was convicted by a jury. The sentencing judge initially set terms of five years for the July rape, two years for the assault, and ten years for the later rape, after mitigation. Applying the principle of totality, he reduced the terms further so that the second case added ten years to the earlier 12-year sentence. The Court of Appeal found no error in that approach.
The appellant argued that the combined sentence was disproportionate and that his background, age, family circumstances and remorse had not received sufficient weight. The court acknowledged that proportionality required consideration of both the offences and the offender’s circumstances. It concluded that the gravity of the offending justified the sentence and dismissed the second appeal as well.