The Court of Appeal has rejected both challenges to a five-year sentence imposed for a rape committed when the accused was 16 and the injured party was about a year younger. The sentence, including a final two years suspended on conditions and a post-release supervision order, remains in place.
The accused appealed against the severity of the sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions separately sought a review on the ground that it was unduly lenient. The accused withdrew his appeal against conviction, so the Court of Appeal considered only the competing sentence applications.
The rape conviction followed a contested trial in the Central Criminal Court. The judgment says the injured party became very drunk at a house party in July 2014, was vomiting and needed support to walk upstairs. She testified that she woke to find the accused on top of her, penetrating her, and that he continued despite her crying and asking him to stop. The accused said the sexual activity was consensual; that was also the defence case at trial.
At sentencing, the judge considered that both parties were minors when the offence occurred and that the accused would have been dealt with under the Children Act 2001 if prosecuted at that time. The judge also considered the delay before sentencing, the accused’s educational progress and the seriousness of the offence. The accused’s counsel argued on appeal that the prison term disrupted his third-level studies more than necessary. The Director’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge had given too much weight to his age and insufficient weight to the offence’s gravity and aggravating circumstances.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had approached a difficult task with “conspicuous care and attention”. It found no scope for a less severe sentence and dismissed the accused’s appeal against severity.
On the Director’s application, the court said a somewhat more severe sentence might have been considered. It identified the injured party’s vulnerable condition, planning and the accused’s persistence despite her condition and others’ intervention as aggravating factors. But the court also treated his age at the time of the offence as an extenuating factor. By the time he was sentenced, he was 19 and pursuing a third-level degree. The court concluded that the sentence was not an impermissible balance and dismissed the undue-leniency application. Both applications were refused.