Lenient sentences doubled for rape of girl, 11

Two men locked up for raping an 11-year-old girl had their sentences more than doubled by the Court of Appeal today.

Roshane Channer and Ruben Monteiro, both 21, were originally given three years and four months in February after admitted raping the schoolgirl in a block of flats in Luton, Bedfordshire, last July.

Three judges in London agreed with Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC that the original terms imposed at Luton Crown Court were “unduly lenient” – and raised them to seven years.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Channer, of no fixed address, and Monteiro, of Luton, will also be on the sex offenders register for life.

The Attorney General said in a statement after the ruling: “This was a horrible case where two men, aged 20, raped an 11-year-old girl, whilst two other youths watched.

“A video recording of part of the incident was taken on a mobile phone, further adding to the anguish of the victim.

“I’m very pleased that the Court of Appeal has today given clear guidance in respect of sentencing sexual offences of this nature.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The law is clear that children under the age of 13 are incapable of giving consent to sexual activity, and I hope that today’s sentence sends out a strong message to anyone who commits terrible crimes such as these – that you can expect to spend a substantial time in prison.”

Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Thames and Chiltern Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said: “We supported the Attorney General’s decision to refer this case as one that had attracted sentences that were unduly lenient.

“The original sentences of 40 months imprisonment in no way reflected the severity or seriousness of their crime. Today’s increased sentences do.

The two men, who were 20 at the time, maintained that they thought the girl was much older than 11. They were charged with the rape of a child, but they asserted she was a “willing participant”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lord Justice Pitchford, announcing the decision, said: “These offenders could not have thought that the complainant was older than 14 years of age. It follows that no significant mitigation was available to them on the basis of a mistaken belief in the girl’s age.”

Related topics: