Austin v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was sentenced on 23 March 2023 in the Crown Court at The City to an extended sentence of imprisonment, comprising a custodial term of 20 years and a 5-year extension period, following guilty pleas to six sexual offences involving two complainants. The offences against the first complainant, aged 17 at the time, involved oral and vaginal rape, committed after the appellant had taken her from a petrol station to his remote home where the assaults occurred. The second complainant, aged 20, was raped vaginally, anally, and orally, and was subjected to attempted strangulation with a dressing gown cord during an incident at an isolated location. The appellant appealed the sentence on grounds that it was manifestly excessive, arguing issues of double-counting aggravating factors, insufficient weight to mitigation, and inadequate totality reduction. The appeal was heard on 5 October and dismissed, with reasons provided in this judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred by double-counting aggravating factors when categorising harm.
2. Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant's mitigation.
3. Whether the sentencing judge made an insufficient reduction to reflect totality of the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge improperly double-counted aggravating factors when elevating the harm categorisation for both complainants, particularly regarding the age disparity and the nature of the offences.
• The judge failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's personal mitigation, including his limited prior convictions, family responsibilities, employment history, insight, and remorse.
• The total sentence was disproportionate; the 20-year custodial term was not just or proportionate, and the reduction for guilty pleas was insufficient.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the sentencing judge's approach to categorising harm and applying aggravating factors. The judge was correct to consider the complainants' vulnerabilities and the seriousness of the offences, including the appellant's use of drugs and violence. The judge appropriately elevated the harm category for the offences against the second complainant due to the multiplicity of serious factors such as strangulation and multiple rapes, which were not double-counted but properly distinguished as separate aggravating elements. The judge's recognition of the appellant's limited prior convictions and personal circumstances was consistent with sentencing guidelines, which caution against giving significant weight to previous good character in serious offences. The court found the judge's downward adjustment for totality reasonable given the gravity of offending against two victims on separate occasions. The overall sentence was deemed just and proportionate, with no error in principle demonstrated by the appellant.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED. The court upheld the extended sentence imposed by the Crown Court, concluding that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The decision directly affects the appellant by affirming the imposed custodial term and extension period. No new legal precedent was established by this judgment.