The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against a 10-year prison sentence for rape and indecent assault offences against his two daughters when they were children.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed by the Central Criminal Court after the man pleaded guilty to three counts of rape and six counts of indecent assault on an indictment containing 78 counts. The offences against his elder daughter took place between 1980 and 1985, and those against his younger daughter between 1987 and 1993.
The Central Criminal Court imposed seven years for the rape counts, to run concurrently, and three years for the indecent assault counts, also concurrent with one another. The two groups of sentences were consecutive, making a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge treated the indecent assaults against the younger daughter as if they involved attempted penetration, although he had not been charged with attempted rape. He also argued that the judge gave insufficient weight to the late guilty plea, his age and health, his personal history, and the long period since the offending. He sought a reduction in sentence, including the possibility of suspension to support rehabilitation.
The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the appeal, submitting that the judge had considered the complainant’s perception of the assaults without sentencing the appellant for an uncharged offence. The prosecution also disputed the weight the appellant placed on his conduct after the offences and on alleged earlier admissions.
The Court of Appeal said there was no basis to conclude that the sentencing judge had punished the appellant for another offence. It noted that the judge had expressly acknowledged there was no such count, and found the principle that a person can only be punished for offences tried and admitted or proved did not arise on these facts.
The court also rejected the challenge to the overall length of the sentence. It said the sentencing judge had considered the late guilty plea, the appellant’s age, health and previous good character, as well as his own childhood abuse, which the judgment said was not based on sworn testimony. The sentencing judge had assessed headline sentences totalling 20 years before reducing the overall term to 10 years for proportionality and mitigation. The Court of Appeal described that reduction as generous and dismissed the appeal. The original sentences remain in force.