The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence by a man identified in the judgment as f.R., leaving in place an effective 10-year prison sentence for rape and sexual assault offences involving two complainants who were children at the time.
The appeal was heard on 26 July 2018. The appellant withdrew his appeal against conviction after the appeal was opened, so the court considered sentence only. It concluded that the effective sentence, including concurrent terms, was within the available range and disclosed no error in principle.
The judgment records that the appellant was convicted on 27 March 2017 and sentenced on 7 July 2017. He had faced 10 charges concerning two complainants, identified as AC and SC. He pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault on AC. The remaining charges went to trial: he was convicted of three sexual assaults involving SC and two rapes involving AC. He was acquitted of two further rape counts involving AC.
The sentencing judge imposed 10 years for the rape counts, five years for sexual assaults involving SC and four years for sexual assaults involving AC. The terms were concurrent, with two years of post-release supervision. The appeal court said the judge had assessed the rape offences at 12 years before mitigation, and the sexual assaults at seven years before mitigation.
The appellant argued that the judge should have suspended part of the sentence to encourage rehabilitation. The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that the judge could have considered consecutive terms but had not done so. The court said its task was to decide whether the effective sentence was excessive, rather than whether it would have imposed a different sentence at first instance.
The judgment describes the offending as very serious and targeted at victims of primary school age. It refers to victim impact reports indicating significant effects on both complainants, and identifies their young age and vulnerability among the aggravating factors. It also recounts that the appellant had received an award from the Residential Redress Board and used money to move into the complainants’ home, giving money to their parents before they left to drink.
The court dismissed the sentence appeal. The conviction appeal was withdrawn and was not determined on its merits by the Court of Appeal.