[2025] EWCA Crim 1196

We have concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. We take on board the fact that an attempted rape might comprise a lesser sentence than an actual rape. The judge took into account in the instant case the following matters. The sentence was not only for the attempted rape (count 7), but also for other counts, namely, counts 4, 5 and 6, involving different forms of penetration which were dealt with by concurrent sentences. Contrary to what was submitted, there was some force in that the complainant tried to move, but the appellant kept pulling her back into position. The reason why the rape did not occur is not because of any voluntary cessation of activity or remorse on the part of the appellant; it was because the appellant heard the sound of the complainant's brother in the next room and was concerned that he would overhear the noise from the bathroom. In the context of everything else which occurred in the bathroom, the rape would have ensued but for the arrival of the brother next door. The offence of attempted rape was aggravated by the fact that it took place in the complainant's home. It was in the context of the actions comprised in counts 4 to 6. It was part of a course of conduct of the other offences. It has had a very serious and lasting effect upon the complainant.

The starting point for the full offence of rape is ten years' imprisonment, with a range of nine to 13 years, with a range of nine to 13 years. It fell into category 2 due to the severe psychological harm which was caused; and an aggravating factor was the abuse of trust (culpability A). No issue is taken with that categorisation.

The judge sentenced the appellant to nine years' imprisonment (the bottom of the range). Whilst the sentence could be reduced from this to take into account the fact that it was an attempt, the following factors indicate that a sentence of nine years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, namely: