The accused was originally convicted with a five year sentence for raping the complainer which was discounted by six months on account of his guilty plea. The Crown argued that the trial judge set the sentence far too low resulting in the judge failing to take into account elements of the accused conduct.
The victim was working in a bed and breakfast where the accused was staying for a short period of time. The victim arrived at her work place with her son and was offered a glass of vodka from the accused. The victim then became really intoxicated and asked her employer to take her home and the accused accompanied them.
The employer left the accused and the victim at her house however he then returned to the victim’s home and let himself in.
As a result of this, he began to violate the victim and the victim’s son witnessed the abuse. The accused did not offer any explanation as to why he committed the offence but admitted to committing the offence.
The Crown argued that the trial judge made a mistake on their assessments when it came to the seriousness of the offence and failed to take this into account. This was because the Crown argued that there was a degree of planning as the accused knew that the victim was in a vulnerable position. Moreover, the fact that he committed the rape in front of her son and prevented the victim was seeking any sort of help.
Although, taking into account all the factors and the impact this had on the complainer which was illustrated in her statement, it was concluded that an appropriate sentence would have been 9 years.
Therefore, the High Court maintained a sentence discount of six months to reflect the effective value of the plea.