Key Facts
- •The Appellant was convicted of three counts of rape against his two younger half-sisters, committed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
- •The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment.
- •The appeal concerns whether the sentencing judge should have adjusted the sentence to reflect changes in early release provisions between 1978/79 and the present day.
- •The Appellant was aged 15-18 at the time of the offences.
- •The victims were aged between 7 and 11 at the time of the offences.
Legal Principles
When sentencing an adult for an offence committed whilst a child, the starting point is the sentence which was likely to have been imposed if sentenced shortly after the commission of the offence.
R v. Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 281
A sentencing judge should not ordinarily take account of early release provisions when deciding the length of a determinate sentence.
R v Patel [2021] EWCA Crim 231
In applying the principle in R v Ahmed, the court is not limited to considering culpability and harm at the time of the offence; the aim is to ensure the offender is not punished more harshly than they would have been at the time of the offence.
R v Ahmed
Outcomes
The appeal on ground 2 (regarding adjustment of sentence to reflect harsher early release provisions) was dismissed.
The court held that in applying the R v Ahmed principle, a judge should not consider early release provisions, either at the time of the offence or presently. The court found that the judge correctly applied the principle in R v Ahmed and R v Patel.
Leave to appeal on ground 1 (sentence manifestly excessive) was refused.
The court found the 5-year sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the offences (at least seven rapes) and the judge's conclusion that a court in 1978 would have imposed a section 53(2) detention rather than Borstal training.