Sentencing guidelines, how do they work?…
Welcome to week 15 of the court visit breakdown!
Here is your backstory:
This was a sentencing
This was for two offences of sexual assault (one offence has two counts)
This hearing began with the prosecution going through their suggestions as to what they feel would be the correct sentence for the defendant and why.
The case seemed to be split into two different offences. The defendant himself, was a taxi driver. On the first offence he had picked up a woman whom he had frequently picked up in the taxi before. On this occasion he had complimented her and asked for her number, she declined. He then drove her in the opposite direction to her destination, to a secluded area and sexually assaulted her. On the second offence, the defendant picked up the woman from a night out, where she was intoxicated. He drove her back home and decided to follow her into her property. She was not aware of this in time to stop him, and he sexually assaulted her in her living room. On both of these occasions the defendant told the victims not to tell anyone, as he knew where they lived.
The prosecution explained the facts of these offences, and suggested that the first offence would be a category 2B offence, which would be between 1-2 years imprisonment, whereas the second offence would be a 1B category offence resulting in 2- 4 years imprisonment. They relied on the aggravating factors of abuse of power. Where the defendant was a taxi driver, he abused his power making the victims vulnerable. Furthermore, the prosecution relied on the defendant having told the victims not to tell anyone, as reasoning for these suggestions.
The prosecution subsequently read out the victim impact statements from both women, emphasising the fear and harm this has caused.
Next, the defence offered their suggestions to the judge. The defendant at this stage was still denying that the offences were not consensual. Therefore, the defence made the suggestion particularly for the second offence, that the victim was intoxicated but she wasn’t intoxicated enough not to consent. Therefore, the aggravating circumstances that make her vulnerable (intoxication) cannot be heavily relied upon, and therefore, the defence suggested the second offence would also be a 2B category offence, rather than a 1B category offence. Additionally, the defence noted the impact financially and mentally this has had on the defendant’s wife and young children.
After both the prosecution and defence had given their submissions, the judge gave his decision. The judge relied on the facts of the case and the abuse of power by the defendant, to make his decision. He also mentioned the lack of remorse the defendant has shown as he still considers the acts to be consensual. The judge declared the first offence which was two counts of sexual assault, would be a 2B category offence and to be of 1 ½ years each in custody. He then decided the second offence to be a 1B category offence, which would be 2 ½ years in custody.
This would result in 4 years in prison as the sentences run concurrently. However, the judge had to abide by the totality principle (the sentence must be just and proportionate to the offence) as the offences were category B, therefore, bringing the sentence down to 3 years.
The defendant has currently been in prison on remand for 13 months already.
This I found to be quite an interesting sentencing to watch. Particularly learning about the categories of the sentencing guidelines.
See you next week!