R v L CA115/05

In this case, the appellant, L, was found guilty of attempted sexual violation and sexual violation by a High Court jury. The complainant, a male aged 15, was the appellant's cousin's son, and the appellant was 49 years old at the time of the offending. The trial judge imposed a sentence of four and a half years imprisonment for the sexual violation and a concurrent sentence of three years imprisonment for the attempted sexual violation. The appellant appealed against her conviction, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and that misdirections by the trial judge resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Solicitor-General appealed against the sentence, claiming that the sentence imposed for the sexual violation was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's directions to the jury accurately described the nature of the intent to be proved by the Crown on the attempted sexual violation charge. The court held that the judge correctly explained the mental element of attempted sexual violation to the jury, and that any technical deficiency in the summing-up could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts.

Regarding the sentence, the Court of Appeal held that the appropriate starting point for this type of offending was in the region of seven to eight years rather than the six years adopted by the trial judge. However, the Court of Appeal accepted that there were significant mitigating factors and that the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances should be imposed. The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment for the sexual violation, quashing the original sentence of four and a half years.