Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Sentences totalling 22 years’ imprisonment for two separate rape attacks were proportionate
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against severity of two sentences totalling 22 years' imprisonment imposed for two horrific rape convictions, on the grounds that it was not possible to find any error of principle in the meticulous and balanced approach taken by the sentencing judge in structuring the sentences as he did, and the gravity of the offences was correctly measured as proportionate to the sentence that he imposed.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal against severity of two sentences totalling 22 years' imprisonment – rape contrary to s. 48 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act as amended by s. 21 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – rape contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – aggravated sexual assault contrary to s. 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (amendment) Act 1990 – sexual assault contrary to common law and as provided for in s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – Professor O’Malley’s “Sentencing Law and Practice” – totality principle – whether the sentence was appropriate and proportionate – it is not possible to find any error of principle in the meticulous and balanced approach taken by the sentencing judge in structuring the sentences as he did – gravity of the offences was correctly measured by the judge as proportionate to the sentence that he imposed – appeals dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
