An intensive correction order may be appropriate for sexual intercourse without consent where the offender's culpability is based on recklessness in failing to advert to the question of consent rather than knowledge of lack of consent, particularly where the offender is of good character with strong rehabilitation prospects and low risk of reoffending. Appellate statements about the primacy of general deterrence in sexual offence sentencing are guidance, not immutable rules, and must yield to the process of instinctive synthesis required by Markarian. The distinction between knowledge and recklessness as to consent is a significant factor in assessing objective seriousness and may distinguish a case from the usual range of comparative sentences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.