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.
Suspended sentence was inappropriate for sexual assault of intellectually disabled women
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal by prosecution of a suspended sentence imposed for the sexual assault of two women with profound intellectual disabilities, and increases the sentence to 18 months with the final 6 months suspended, on the grounds that the view of the sentencing judge that the assaults were minor ones that might well have been dealt with at District Court level was a clear error of principle and the sentence imposed was a substantial departure from the norm.
Criminal law – sentencing – undue leniency – whether a suspended sentence imposed for sexual assault on two women was unduly lenient – section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 – respondent worked as a health care assistant and sexually assaulted women with profound intellectual disabilities – whether the sentencing judge gravely underestimated the seriousness of the offending behaviour and misinterpreted the implications of the absence of evidence of any psychological harm done to both victims – breach of trust – view that the assaults were minor ones that might well have been dealt with at District Court level is in our view a clear error of principle that requires this Court to intervene –18 month sentence with the final 6 months suspended substituted – appeal allowed.
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.
