In reaching this decision, the court was conscious of the violence of the attack, the appellant’s attempts to clean up evidence, and the appellant’s previous criminal history.

Background

This appeal decision provided guidance in relation to sentencing for rape with aggravating features. Here, the appellant was sentenced in 2021 to 25 years’ imprisonment, which he was now appealing.

This sentence encompassed several offences, including developing a relationship without disclosing his previous criminal convictions contrary to section 113(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, vaginal rape, anal rape, and causing grievous bodily harm.

For these offences, the appellant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. In addition, pursuant to a finding of dangerousness, the appellant received a five-year extension to the custodial term of 20 years.

In reaching this sentence, the trial court took many factors into account, such as the fact that the appellant had a previous conviction for rape in similar circumstances, and his victims had both been assaulted whilst in an unconscious state.

The trial court also considered that the appellant had shown little or no remorse, and had clearly not learnt from his past imprisonment.

His attack had also shown callousness, as he had left his victim on her own outside in the cold on a public green, while he returned home to attempt to destroy evidence and clean up before police arrived.

Finally, the trial judge emphasised that the appellant consistently blamed the victim for her injuries by stating that she had sustained facial injuries by walking into a door and also that the internal injuries associated with the rape were as a result of rough sex. This was despite considerable medical evidence and CCTV evidence to the contrary.

Sentencing remarks

The trial judge described the case in these terms:

The judge considered that there were four aggravating factors in the case:

1. The sexual violence which the appellant attempted to explain away by saying that it was consensual rough sex.
2. The physical violence which appeared to have been completely gratuitous.
3. The attempted forensic clean up.
4. The appellant’s very relevant previous record.

Arguments on appeal

Effectively, the appellant’s sole argument was that the sentence of 20 years plus a five-year extended term was manifestly excessive. Further, the judge had not provided a starting point in his sentencing, which went against the principle of transparency.

He argued that, “the overall sentence was out of kilter with authority in this jurisdiction in relation to rape”. It was also argued that this was a “crushing” sentence for a man of his age, as he was 31.

Consideration

The court began by noting that an extended custodial sentence, like the one imposed here, is governed by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. The maximum extended term that can be imposed is eight years.

Next, the court considered the relevant starting point for sentencing in a rape conviction. They noted that the starting points are either five, eight, or 15 years, depending on the circumstances, although these can be raised or lowered.

“In this case the judge should have set a starting point,” the court stated, as this would have provided some explanation of how he arrived at the 20-year sentence, which was, on its face, outside the range for aggravated rapes.

This omission was a failing accepted by the prosecution, but it was not necessarily fatal to the overall sentence reached. Further, the court did not think that the appellant’s age had any significant bearing on his sentence.

The court also accepted the four aggravating factors that the trial judge had highlighted. These justified that a starting point of 15 years was not enough. The court found that an appropriate starting point therefore would have been 18 years.

Th court accepted that this was “a very stiff sentence which is beyond the usual range and may be unprecedented in this jurisdiction”; however, it was justified given the appellant’s high culpability and the high harm to his victim.

Further, given the need to protect the public, an extended custodial sentence of five years was not an unreasonable position to take by the judge on the facts of this case.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the court found that an appropriate custodial term was one of 18 years in this case. In addition, the court saw no fault in the five-year extension period, during which the appellant will be subject to a licence.

Overall, this represents a total custodial sentence of 23 years, reducing the original sentence by two years.

At the end of the 18-year term, the appellant will automatically be released, but remains subject to licensed supervision for the five-year extension period during which he may be recalled to custody if he breaches any of his licence conditions.