ASSAULT BY PENETRATION

It could not be emphasised too much that where a woman was too ill or too unfit, for whatever reason, to consent to sexual activity she had to be left alone, and the exploitation of her vulnerability would be an aggravating rather than a mitigating feature.

A sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea to an offence of assault on a child by penetration was manifestly excessive as, despite the abuse of a position of trust, the penetration had been minimal and there had been no physical harm caused to the two-year-old victim.

A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for 13 counts of sexual offences involving young children, including rape, was not manifestly excessive as although R. v Millberry (William Christopher) [2002] EWCA Crim 2891, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 546 indicated that the appropriate starting point for a campaign of rape was 15 years, that was a starting point and not a finishing point, and the definitive sentencing guidelines applied.

A judge had been entitled to recommend the deportation of an offender despite a failure to provide notice as required by the Immigration Act 1971 s.6(2), since the offender and his counsel had been aware of the issue and had made submissions at the relevant time.

A community sentence was not unduly lenient where the offender had pleaded of guilty to an offence of assault by penetration contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.2(1) on the basis that he was mistaken as to the identity of the victim, believing her to be somebody else, who would have consented to his advances.