The Court of Appeal reduced a man’s sentence for rape from 11 years to eight, finding that the original headline sentence was too high for the circumstances and out of line with similar cases.
The appellant, identified in the judgment as T.V., had been convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury in October 2012. The trial court imposed 11 years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended on conditions, and ordered post-release supervision and registration as a sex offender. He appealed the severity of the sentence.
The appeal court said the rape took place in the complainant’s own bedroom, where she was asleep, and that the appellant took advantage of a degree of vulnerability. It also considered the harm described in her victim impact statement. But the court said the case was less aggravated than a rape committed during a burglary, because the appellant had been invited into the home.
The judges found that an 11-year headline sentence was unusual and “out of kilter” with most comparable cases involving a single rape without premeditation or additional violence. They considered a previous Court of Appeal case, DPP v Power, a close comparator. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by placing the case too high on the scale of seriousness.
The court did not find error in the assessment of mitigation. It said the sentencing judge had identified the relevant mitigating factors and that suspending three years had reflected them adequately. The appeal court also considered additional material about the appellant’s conduct in prison, including a prison manager’s positive letter, charity fundraising and completed courses. It described the offence as a single, very serious act of aberrant behaviour against a background of otherwise good conduct before and since.
The court quashed the original sentence and resentenced the appellant to eight years’ imprisonment. It kept the three-year suspension in place, leaving an effective discount of 37.5 per cent, which the court said would support his continuing rehabilitation. The post-release supervision requirements and sex-offender registration remained unchanged. The judgment does not specify the revised sentence’s commencement date.