‘The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of rape … one charge of aiding and abetting rape, two charges of indecent assault and one charge of indecency with a child. He was initially sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment on each of the rape charges and on the aiding and abetting rape charge, and four years’ imprisonment on each of the other charges, the seven sentences to run concurrently. The sentences of 16 years were calculated by taking a starting point of 24 years and deducting one-third for the guilty pleas. Some four weeks later the sentencing judge had the case re-listed and, in reliance on the “slip rule” in Crim PR r 28.4, he changed the four sentences of 16 years to 18 years on the footing that a reduction of 25%, not one-third, was appropriate in view of the fact that the defendant had made no admissions when, much earlier, the complainant had made complaints but no prosecution had resulted. The defendant appealed against sentence. Permission to appeal was given by the single judge on the ground that it had been established in R v Nodjoumi (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 183 that it was incorrect to use the slip rule to change a sentence solely because the sentencing judge had, on reflection, concluded that the original sentence had been inadequate. On the hearing of the appeal, however, R v Nodjoumi was relied on only as support for a submission that the sentencing judge had not been justified in concluding that the reduction should be 25% rather than one-third.’
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
