R v PAK

The appellant, in the case of R v PAK, appealed against his conviction and sentence for a series of sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter. These offences spanned the period during which the victim was aged between seven and fifteen years. The most severe offence, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16, which included anal intercourse and indecent dealing, was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment. The appellant was also sentenced to five years for the anal intercourse offence, and four-year concurrent terms for three counts of permitting himself to be indecently dealt with and four counts of indecent dealing. The appellant, aged between 40 and 48 at the time of the offences, had no prior criminal convictions. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence, and whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable considering the evidence, and whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence. The court evaluated the severity of the crimes, the reliability of the victim's testimony, and the admissibility of the proposed new evidence. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's age and lack of prior criminal history warranted a different sentencing outcome.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the jury's verdict was reasonable based on the evidence presented. The appellant's argument that the sentence was excessive was rejected, as the court found that the severity of the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence. The reliability of the victim's testimony was upheld, despite the lengthy time elapsed since the events. The court also refused the application to adduce new evidence, finding that it was neither newly discovered nor reasonably discoverable prior to the trial, and that it would not ordinarily have been admissible at the trial. Additionally, the evidence was deemed vague and incomplete.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused, and the application for leave to adduce evidence be refused.