R v Hamoda Alizarif Ebrahim
[2024] EWCA Crim 273
R v Luiz Inacio Da Silva Neto
18 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1110
Court of Appeal
A man was given a 22-year sentence for sexually assaulting two men after drugging them. The court thought the sentence was too long because it didn't consider all the crimes together, so they reduced it to 19 years.
Key Facts
- •Luiz Inacio Da Silva Neto (appellant) pleaded guilty to nine counts of simple possession of controlled drugs.
- •Appellant was convicted after trial of five counts of serious sexual offences (rape and causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent) and associated offences of administering a substance with intent.
- •Offences involved two victims (referred to as SS and JH).
- •Appellant drugged both victims before committing sexual offences.
- •Appellant was sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment (12 years consecutive for rape of JH and 10 years consecutive for causing SS to engage in penetrative sexual activity).
- •Appellant appealed against sentence on counts related to the sexual offences.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect victims' identities.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Totality principle in sentencing: The total sentence for multiple offences must be just and proportionate; simply adding together notional single sentences is usually insufficient.
Sentencing Council Guidelines (specific guideline not cited)
Sentencing guidelines for rape and causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity without consent should be applied, considering harm and culpability factors.
Sentencing Council guidelines (specific guideline not cited)
Good character should not normally justify a sentence reduction in sexual offences.
Sexual Offences Guidelines
Abuse of trust as an aggravating factor in sentencing requires a specific relationship; the relationship between the appellant and victim SS did not meet this criteria.
R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, paragraph 18
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
The individual sentences were not manifestly excessive, but the overall sentence of 22 years was disproportionate due to a failure to properly apply the totality principle. The judge did not adjust the sentences to reflect the cumulative effect of multiple offences.
Sentence reduced from 22 years to 19 years.
The court substituted a 9-year sentence for the 10-year sentence on count 14 and a 10-year sentence for the 12-year sentence on count 19, while keeping the rest of the sentencing structure.