Court of Appeal refuses DPP's application for review of sentence for undue leniency, on the grounds that the sentencing judge approached his task with conspicuous care and deliberation and, notwithstanding that the sentence was lenient, it was not so unduly lenient as to fall outside the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation, with the margin afforded being greater in a case where the facts are such that comparator cases are not readily available.
Offences: two counts of defilement of a child under 15 years of age, three counts (described as sample counts) of defilement of a child under 17 years (same injured party), one count of assault causing harm (same injured party) and one count of defilement of a child under 17 years (different injured party)
Original sentence: 11 years with two years suspended
Appeal by: prosecution (statutory application)
Outcome: application refused