R v Jemel Soloman Hines
[2024] EWCA Crim 757
R v Girmay Andes
24 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 715
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and sexual assault. He argued his sentence was too harsh, but the court said the judge was right to give him a long sentence because the victim was a young, vulnerable girl, and he had deliberately targeted her.
Key Facts
- •Girmai Andes (applicant) pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was convicted of one count of rape.
- •The sexual assaults involved unwanted touching and attempts to expose the breasts of two women (C1 and C2).
- •The rape involved a 15-year-old girl (C3), a 'looked after child', who was intoxicated and isolated.
- •The applicant lured C3 to his home, where he raped her.
- •The applicant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for the rape and concurrent 6-month sentences for the sexual assaults.
- •The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the rape should have been categorized as 3B instead of 2B under the sentencing guidelines.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent the identification of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing guidelines for rape consider the victim's vulnerability and the offender's culpability to determine the appropriate sentence.
Sentencing guideline for rape
Outcomes
The appeal against sentence was refused.
The judge's assessment of C3's vulnerability as 'particularly vulnerable' due to her age, status as a 'looked after child', intoxication, and isolation was upheld. The cumulative effect of these factors justified categorizing the rape as 2B.