In court
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02645505231155765 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | In court |
In court
Nigel Stone, Visiting Fellow in the School of Psychology, University of East Anglia,
reviews recent appeal judgments and other judicial developments that inform senten-
cing and early release.
Sexual harm
Victim ‘particularly vulnerable’? Virginity at stake
Having met S., a fellow student at her university, at a Student Union social event at
which they had danced together and kissed, V. had agreed to accompany him to his
room afterwards, though making clear she would not have sex with him. Then aged
20 and without previous convictions, S. had been heavily intoxicated. Following
some initial consensual sexual activity, S. had forced vaginal intercourse upon V.,
subsequently trying to subject her to oral penetration. She had experienced heavy
vaginal bleeding. Unlike S., V. had no prior experience of sexual intercourse.
Though she had moderated her parents’strict principles to some degree, her reli-
gious faith nonetheless remained important to her and retaining her virginity had
remained a clear part of that faith code. She had not felt able to tell her parents
what had happened.
When tried for rape, after a delay of around 3 years, S. was convicted by a jury,
having claimed intercourse had not occurred. Though no pre-sentence report (PSR)
was considered necessary, the judge was satisfied that his Autistic Spectrum
Disorder had not reduced his culpability but identified in mitigation his compara-
tively young age and his previous good character, including ‘qualities of kindness
and support’. Applying the relevant Guideline (Sexual Offences, 2013), the
judge concluded that his offence came within category 2B, with a starting point
of 8 years’custody and a range between 7 and 9 years. In weighing the extent
of ‘harm’S. had caused, the judge identified V., as coming within the ambit of
‘victim is particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances’, and thus an aggra-
vating factor.
On S.’s appeal against sentence of 7 years’imprisonment, it was argued on his
behalf that as V. had chosen to drink and socialise at university and had chosen to
engage in some sexual activity with S., she could not be deemed ‘particularly
vulnerable’.
The Journal of Communit
y
and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2023, Vol. 70(1) 86–98
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02645505231155765
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
To continue reading
Request your trial