The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a four-year sentence imposed on a man convicted of sexually assaulting a woman while she slept.
The appeal was confined to three grounds: that the sentencing judge failed to account fully for mitigation, imposed a disproportionate sentence and placed excessive weight on the appellant’s previous convictions. The court said it had found no error of principle in any of them.
The man was convicted by an 11-to-one jury majority of sexual assault. The judgment says the assault involved digital penetration while the woman was asleep. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended for three years, subject to conditions including no contact with the woman.
The Court of Appeal described the 18-month reduction as generous in light of the mitigation available. There had been no guilty plea, and the court said the appellant’s cooperation had been limited. It noted that the sentencing judge had considered matters including his age, trade and work history, family circumstances, boxing ability, a hand injury and his cooperation.
The court also rejected the argument that the four-year headline sentence was too high. It said the sentence was at the severe end of the sentencing judge’s legitimate discretion but remained within it. The court considered a prior case involving digital penetration of a sleeping victim, which also had a four-year headline sentence, and said that case supported the term imposed here despite differences in mitigation.
The appellant had 28 previous convictions, none for the same or similar type of offending. The appeal court said the record was not treated as an aggravating circumstance, but meant he could not claim the substantial mitigation normally available to someone of previous good character.
The judgment recounts the woman’s victim impact statement, including that she moved temporarily to her parents’ home, later slept in her daughter’s room with a knife under her pillow, sought counselling and continued to experience flashbacks and nightmares. These were accounts given to the sentencing court; the appeal concerned the sentence, not a rehearing of the conviction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.