A drug-crazed schoolboy rapist has had his sentence cut on a appeal despite vowing to get ‘revenge’ on his victim.
The 14-year-old, who is from the Preston area but cannot be identified for legal reasons, raped his older brother’s girlfriend while high on drugs.
The youngster, who was just 13 at the time of the attacks, forced himself on his 16-year-old victim twice while high on tranquillisers.
He was caged for seven-and-a-half years at Preston Crown Court in July, after being found guilty of two counts of rape and two of sexual assault.
But his sentence, which he is serving in a young offenders’ institution, has been cut to six years by judges sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court despite a probation report revealing the youngster posed a ‘high risk’ of offending again and had spoken of getting ‘revenge’ on the victim, as he claimed she had made false complaints about him.
The court heard that the teenager lured the victim into a room in her home, where he raped her. He later went to her room and raped her a second time, after sexually assaulting her.
Shortly before the attacks, both he and the victim had taken what they believed was valium – but was actually a powerful tranquilliser called phenazepam – after discovering a stash of the drug.
The following day he wrote a letter to the victim, saying he had committed the offences because of the effects of the drugs he had taken.
His lawyers argued the crown court judge didn’t take enough account of the teenager’s ‘extreme youth’ at the time and imposed too high a sentence.
Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Wyn Williams said the case was a ‘difficult’ one which the judge handled carefully – but the original sentence was ‘excessive’.
Sitting with Mr Justice Spencer, he added: “We are entirely satisfied that the judge was correct to impose a lengthy term of detention in this case, notwithstanding his young age.
“He had been assessed as being at high risk of committing further offences.
“However, having reflected on the sentence imposed, we have reached the conclusion that it was somewhat too long in all the circumstances.
“It may be that insufficient weight was given to the very young age of the appellant, given that the judge accepted he was a 14-year-old who was immature and under-developed intellectually.
“This was a very difficult sentencing exercise and we divert from the judge’s view with considerable reluctance, because she had presided over the trial and was well-placed to assess the correct sentence.
“Having said all that, we are persuaded that seven-and-a-half years was too long.”