The Court of Appeal has increased the sentence imposed on a man convicted of sexually abusing three children in his extended family, finding that the original sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offending.
The court ruled on 30 July 2024 in an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence as unduly lenient. The respondent, identified in the judgment as A.A., had been sentenced to 15 years for rape, section 4 rape and sexual exploitation offences, and four years for sexual assault. Those sentences ran concurrently.
The convictions involved four counts of sexual assault, three of sexual exploitation of a child, two counts of rape and one count of section 4 rape. The offending took place between August 2014 and April 2016, when the children were aged between five and nine. The judgment says the respondent was convicted of offences against all three children, identified as A, B and C, and describes him as their uncle by marriage.
The Director argued that the original headline sentences were too low given the children’s ages, the prolonged abuse, the breach of trust, the involvement of other adults and the respondent’s role in directing sexual acts. The Director also argued that concurrent sentences did not adequately reflect the totality of the offending. The respondent maintained that the sentencing judge had properly considered the aggravating factors and totality.
The Court of Appeal said the case was among the most serious to come before it. It found that the respondent had been a central figure in the abuse and had acted deceptively in dealings with social workers while presenting himself as assisting the family. The court concluded that the original sentence was a substantial departure from what ought to have been imposed and resentenced him de novo.
The court set a headline sentence of 20 years. After considering mitigation, which it described as very limited, it imposed 18½ years for the rape, section 4 rape and sexual exploitation offences. The court left the remaining sentences as imposed by the trial judge. It also left post-release supervision unchanged. The judgment does not state that the court changed the concurrent arrangement.