Headline sentence of nine years for defilement was too high in the circumstances

Criminal – sentence appeal – pleaded guilty defilement of a child under the age of fifteen and exploitation - sentence of six and a half years and five years on three counts of exploitation - sentences were ordered to run concurrently - custodial sentence is one of six and a half years’ imprisonment – appellant was 19 at time of offences and complainant was 14 - appeal against severity of sentence - trial judge made a wrong assessment of the gravity of the offence and that he identified an inappropriately high headline sentence - import of a victim impact statement - insufficient regard was had to the penal objective of rehabilitation in the way in which the sentence was structured – trial judge ought to have considered partly suspending the sentence he was minded to impose to incentivise the appellant’s continued desistence and rehabilitation, and that the failure to do so was an error – outline of the offence - sentencing hearing – decision of the trial judge - headline sentence – comparators - importance of age – Court erred in fixing a headline sentence of nine years - too high - correct approach ought to have seen it placed in the mid-range – increase in sentence could be contemplated only where receipt of victim impact evidence has resulted in the court having a clearer and better appreciation of the harm done – mitigating factors – child exploitation offence – appropriate headline sentence is seven and a half years – victim impact statement - five years’ imprisonment - suspension of some or all of a sentence may incentivise continued desistence in an offender who is at low risk of re-offending - little risk of reoffending - sentence on the defilement charge is to be reduced to five years with the last year suspended, to run concurrently with the sentence on the exploitation charges.