R v C (CA245/05)

In this case, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual abuse involving his natural daughter. The charges included sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and sexual violation by rape. The offending occurred over several years, starting when the victim was six years old and continuing until she was approximately eleven years old. The appellant was sentenced to ten years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years. The appellant appealed against both the sentence and the minimum period of imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point of 14 years imprisonment and the minimum period of imprisonment of six years were appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high and that the minimum period of imprisonment was excessive, given the mitigating factors. The Crown argued that the starting point and minimum period of imprisonment were appropriate, given the gravity of the offending and the harm caused to the victim.

The court found that the starting point adopted by the Judge was appropriate for the level of offending, given the aggravating circumstances. The court also found that the allowance made for mitigating factors was sufficient in the present case. While the court agreed that the sentencing notes did not indicate the way in which the Judge brought to account the factors in ss 7, 8 and 9 in his determination of the length of the minimum period of imprisonment, it was not persuaded that a minimum period of imprisonment of six years was manifestly excessive, given the requirements for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that there was no basis for intervention and that the sentence and minimum period of imprisonment were appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the need to hold the appellant accountable, promote in him a sense of responsibility and provide for the interests of the victim. The decision of the District Court was upheld.