A 40-year-old man convicted of the rape and sexual assault of his younger sister over a number of years, which included sexually assaulting the victim with a screwdriver, has had an appeal against his 11-year prison sentence dismissed.
"There was serious abuse of familial trust here. The offending did, in our view, involve a more than usual degradation of the victim, and intimidation beyond that normally associated with the offence," said Mr Justice John Edwards on Thursday at the Court of Appeal.
The man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the injured party, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on January 12th 2016, having been charged with 48 counts of rape and sexual assault. He was found guilty after a five-day trial and sentenced to 11 years, which was reduced from a headline sentence of 14 years.
The offences occurred between January 1999 and December 2005, when the appellant was aged between 16 and 22 and his sister was between ten and 16 years of age.
There were three grounds to the appeal of the sentence made by counsel for the appellant: that the sentencing judge failed to adhere to proper sentencing principles and imposed an excessive penalty; that the judge erred in her assessment of the gravity of the offences; and that she erred in not suspending a portion of the sentence.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Edwards noted it had been argued that there were differences in the gravity of some of the offences, as a minority were committed while the appellant was legally a child, and these might have attracted lower sentences.
"The majority of the offences, and certainly the majority of the more serious variety, were committed after the appellant had attained his majority, and indeed he continued to offend up until aged 22."
Mr Justice Edwards continued: "We do not agree that the gravity of any of the offences committed before he was 18 was necessarily less, simply by virtue of him being legally a minor.
"Some offending, such as rape and murder, is so notoriously egregious that society may reasonably expect its depravity or turpitude to be well appreciated by those who are approaching, but not yet traversed, the notional statutory line dividing childhood from adulthood," said Mr Justice Edwards.
He went on to say that there was no evidence offered to the sentencing court that the appellant's level of maturity had anything to do with why he committed these offences.
"We find no error in how the sentencing judge approached the structuring of her sentencing," he said.
"The appellant's culpability was significant in this case, and the harm done was immense. We therefore find no error in the sentencing judge's nomination of 14 years as her starting point in respect of the rape offences, and of five years as her starting point in respect of the sexual assault offences.
"The single biggest mitigating factor that was potentially to be availed of by this appellant was not availed of by him - he did not plead guilty," said Mr Justice Edwards.
He also noted that there has been no meaningful expression of remorse in this case.
The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
