Select a region
The full Court of Appeal has refused applications brought by the States to force reconsideration of prison sentences in two cases of rape and sexual assault on the grounds they were unduly lenient.
It marks the first time Law Officers have appealed sentences of the Royal Court through judicial reforms introduced in 2022.
The first case centred on two teenagers who were found guilty of the rape, sexual assault, and assault of a teenage girl. The boys, who cannot be named due to their age, were referred to in court as D1 and D2 and were sentenced to youth detention on 17 November.
D1 received two years and nine months for two counts of rape, one of sexual assault, and one of assault, while D2 was received two years and three months for one count each of rape, sexual assault, and assault.
The other case involved Freddie Christian Trenchard, now known as Alyssa Christine Trenchard, who was found guilty of raping a younger female and sentenced to three years youth detention last October.
The Crown’s case for appeal was that the sentencing starting point applied in each of the cases was set too low, and too much discount was then applied.
But those applications were rejected by the three appeal judges on 19 April.
In the case of D1 & D2, Crown Advocate Jenny McVeigh argued that the boys should have been considered as acting together which should have led to a sentencing starting point of eight years for each.
D1, who had an additional count of rape, was given a starting point of eight years and three months, while D2 had a starting point of six years and nine months.
Advocate McVeigh said these should have been the same given that the lead offence was the rape of one victim at the same time.
“Given the final sentences, it’s difficult to see what led to a further substantial reduction in sentence other than age,” she said. “There needs to be some justification as to how that outcome has been reached."
In the case of Trenchard, Crown Advocate Fiona Russell argued the aggravating factors of the age of the victim, the use of violence, and the degradation of the victim should’ve resulted in a higher starting point of as much as eight years, rather than six-and-a-half years.
She also said that Trenchard’s transgender status resulted in too much leniency in the discount stage, with the court deducting one-year and four months for “potential difficulties” this could cause within Guernsey’s prison.
“We cannot assume the same problems and risks are present in the Guernsey prison system as they are in the UK prison system... there was no objective basis for assuming her transgenderism would make Trenchard particularly vulnerable in prison.”
Advocate Russell said there should be a “high deterrent to offending of this nature” and the court “won’t want to send a message that very serious sexual offending is met with a very lenient sentence”.
Advocate Alan Merrien, representing D1, said the view of the Crown on how factors led to a sentencing discount were the “interpretation” of the prosecution and jurats had rightly considered the impact of imprisonment on young peoples’ education, health and wellbeing.
“The Royal Court is perfectly entitled to exercise leniency, and I submit it’s not undue leniency.”
Advocate Sam Maindonald, representing D2, echoed those comments and said jurats didn’t only consider age while sentencing as they also had sight of the trial proceedings and youth justice reports.
“What you are being asked to do today amounts to tinkering with the sentence,” she told the judges.
Advocate Oliver Fattorini, representing Trenchard, said the discount applied by jurats due to the age of the defendant was reasonable, and pointed out several other cases where other young offenders had received less stern sentences.
He also said that the prison cannot accommodate transgender people, particularly those undergoing medical procedures, well and there were risks whether Trenchard was placed within the vulnerable male wing or the general female wing.
The judges refused the appeal but noted that their decision “does not in any way detract from the serious impact this would have had” on the victim.
They said the jurats were “well placed in our view to assess the harm caused by the offending and the culpability of the defendants” and took proper consideration of their youth.
The idea that the court should’ve followed a more rigid approach to sentencing was rejected.
The applicants’ wish to increase the sentence of youth detention to at least three-years and four-months was a “relatively small suggested increase” which didn’t warrant further intervention, they added.
An appeal against the rape conviction for D1 was also rejected, with the judges saying all matters had been assessed by the jurats, they had been clearly and correctly directed by the judge, and there was “no risk” they would’ve been confused.
The judges similarly said that they were “extremely conscious of the gravity of the offending, but also extremely conscious of the role of the Royal Court”.
They said the sentence wasn’t unduly lenient, and they had produced guidance for the justice system laying out the “appropriate test” for determining whether a sentence is too lenient or not which will be published within the full written judgement.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.