The Court of Appeal has dismissed J. O’D’s appeal against the severity of an 18-year prison sentence for rape offences involving two victims. It held that the sentencing judge made no error in imposing consecutive nine-year terms for offences concerning each victim.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Kennedy on 5 April 2019. The appellant had pleaded guilty on a representative basis to two counts of rape under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 and four counts of rape under the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The indictment contained 17 counts, including other rape counts, a threat to kill, assault causing harm and false imprisonment.
The offending occurred during an episode lasting more than seven hours at the home of the first victim, EK, the appellant’s former partner. The second victim, CM, was EK’s 16-year-old foster child and lived with her. The judgment records that the appellant forcibly entered the house, threatened EK with a knife, assaulted and raped her, then also sexually assaulted and raped CM. The court described the offending as involving repeated sexual violations, violence, humiliation and two victims in their own home.
The sentencing judge had imposed consecutive terms of nine years for the offences concerning each victim, making 18 years in total. He considered the offending among the most serious of its kind and said a life sentence would have been appropriate absent mitigating factors. He gave credit for the guilty pleas and the appellant’s efforts to rehabilitate himself in custody, while finding that the plea came relatively late in the process.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, that the judge gave insufficient weight to mitigation and rehabilitation, and that consecutive sentences breached the principle of totality. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offending and the presence of two victims, one aged 16, justified the sentence.
The Court of Appeal rejected each ground. It found that the judge was entitled to assess the offending as exceptionally serious, and that he had considered the appellant’s admissions, plea, remorse and rehabilitation efforts. It also upheld consecutive sentences, finding two distinct acts of sexual offending against separate victims, and concluded that the overall 18-year term was proportionate. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment did not alter the sentence.