The Court of Appeal has refused R.A.’s appeal against the severity of sentence for serious offending against a young child by a person in a position of trust. The court said the sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the range available.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore by Mr Justice Birmingham on 4 March 2016, dealt only with the sentence appeal. The court noted that it had already dismissed the appeal against conviction.
The defence argued that the trial judge’s starting point was closer to the upper range of sentences than the middle range, which it said was appropriate for the offence. It pointed to the fact that the rape allegation concerned an attempted, rather than completed, rape, and that the alleged attempt at penetration happened on one occasion. The defence also submitted that its conduct of the case had been restrained and that cross-examination had been handled sensitively.
The court described the offending as “clearly very serious”. It noted that although there appeared to have been one attempt at actual penetration, the offending persisted over a significant period and a significant portion of the child’s childhood.
The judges said their role was to review the sentence, not to decide what sentence they would have imposed themselves. They would intervene only if an error of principle was identified, and would alter a sentence only if it fell outside the available range. The court concluded that this sentence did not fall outside that range.
There had been no plea. The court said a guilty plea can provide significant mitigation in sex offence cases. It clarified that the absence of a plea was not an aggravating factor, but reduced the scope for mitigation and leniency. It accepted that defence counsel had been restrained and responsible, while observing that this was what was expected.
The court therefore refused the appeal against sentence severity. The judgment does not specify the sentence imposed or give further details about the offending.