Dorel Simion v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2023] HCJAC 21

Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant was convicted after trial at Glasgow High Court of two charges of rape both relating to offences against victims who were intoxicated and incapable of consenting. The second rape was committed at a time when the appellant was on bail for the first rape. The appellant was sentenced to a cumulo sentence of 10 years imprisonment, 6 months of which was attributable to the bail aggravation. A co-accused on the second charge had pled guilty at the outset of the trial and he was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment, discounted from 6 years on account of the plea. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed it being contended it was excessive, the appellant having no analogous previous convictions, he had a settled family life and a good work record and the trial judge had given insufficient weight to these factors. In addition, reference was made to Ibbotson v. HMA 2022 SCCR 265where the court considered what was an appropriate sentence for two rapes prosecuted on separate indictments where the total punishment imposed was held to exceed what could reasonably have been expected if both crimes had been prosecuted on the same indictment. Here the court refused the appeal. The court did not consider that the case of Ibbotson advanced the appellant’s argument in this appeal. Furthermore, the court did not consider that the headline sentence of 6 years in relation to the co-accused was a powerful point in the appellant’s argument. The court noted that the co-accused faced a single charge and there was no bail aggravation. The court considered that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was not excessive referring to the vulnerability of both complainers, the fact that the appellant was on bail in relation to the second rape and the conduct of the appellant on both occasions was described as predatory and displaying “a deplorable lack of respect for his victims”. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Social Work Report obtained highlighted a worrying lack of insight into the impact of his offending and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment could not be said to be excessive in the circumstances having regard to the gravity of the offences.