R v VN

The applicant in this case was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, and two counts of common assault. The applicant was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for each of the three counts of rape, with lesser concurrent sentences for the assault with intent to rape and one count of assault. No additional punishment was imposed for the other count of assault. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant and the complainant lived in the same house, with the applicant being the complainant’s step-father. The rapes occurred in the complainant’s family home, with the first rape involving force and physical violence, and subsequent rapes being committed under the force of threats, including blackmail about releasing a video of the first rape on social media.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for each count of rape was manifestly excessive. The court considered various factors, including the severity of the crimes, the applicant’s position of trust and authority, the impact on the complainant, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also examined the sentencing principles and the appropriate range of sentences for similar offences. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

The court denied the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and did not constitute a manifest excess. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also noted that the applicant had the right to challenge the conviction in a higher court, but the appeal against sentence was not warranted in this case.