The offence took place in a small storeroom, or staff room, as it was called in evidence, behind the counter at the centre at which the defendant worked. The defendant and the victim had begun their acquaintance only on the previous day. That acquaintance was initiated by the defendant by way of WhatsApp communications with the victim while she was attending a Sunday class at the centre.
They then met after her class finished and they walked together to a restaurant at which she was to have dinner with her family. During that walk, the defendant made certain romantic overtures towards the victim but was rebuffed.
Following that, the victim, perhaps unwisely, and the defendant continued their WhatsApp contacts and, on the next day, a Monday, the defendant asked the victim to come back to the centre. She did so that evening. She waited in the storeroom for about an hour for the defendant to finish work, following which, the defendant entered the room. The tutorial centre was by now empty of students and staff except for the defendant and the victim.
The lights at the centre had been turned off by the defendant. They remained together in the dark storeroom for about an hour, during which time, the victim, according to the jury’s verdict, eventually was subjected to a determined physical approach by the defendant who, against her will and after a struggle, managed to remove part of the victim’s clothing and have sexual intercourse with her.
The victim suffered no injury as a result of the defendant’s forcing her to have intercourse. He ejaculated outside her body. It is unclear as to whether he wore a condom. There is no evidence of any threats.
Given the lack of significant violence or of any threats and given the uninjured state of the victim, in my view the act of rape was at the lower end of the scale and would have warranted a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment. However, there is clearly an aggravating factor. The victim at the time was 18 years old. She was a student at the tutorial centre where the 29-year-old defendant was employed.
While it may be that the victim acted irresponsibly in developing her WhatsApp-initiated relationship with the defendant, and was certainly irresponsible in remaining in the small storeroom of the tutorial centre at night time and after the other students had gone, she is nevertheless entitled to the protection of the law.
Whilst the defendant was not a lecturer or tutor, he was in a position of some, at least, authority over the victim. He had authority to rearrange her classes for her, provide her with notes and collect her lesson fees and, in my view, the age differential between the defendant and the victim is a matter which enhanced his authority over her.
In my view, that factor of the defendant’s age and position relative to the victim properly increases the starting point to a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant has a clear record. That is the only matter of substance which is capable of being advanced in mitigation. The offence, however, is serious and his clear record, in my view, counts for little in the present circumstances.
Nevertheless, I think it warrants some recognition and I reduce his sentence on that basis to one of 5 years 9 months’ imprisonment.