Digital penetration of a sleeping victim's vagina without consent, where the offender held an honest but wholly unreasonable belief in consent attributable to borderline intellectual functioning and intoxication, warranted a sentence of 2 years' immediate imprisonment rather than 3 years. A sentencing judge's characterisation of digital penetration as only 'marginally less serious' than penile penetration was erroneous where the objective circumstances showed penile penetration would have been a materially greater affront to personal dignity and bodily integrity. An offender's borderline intellectual functioning moderates but does not eliminate the relevance of general deterrence, and does not render the offender an inappropriate vehicle for personal deterrence where the offender is capable of understanding the wrongfulness of the conduct.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.