Rant outside home of victim’s family puts rapist back in jail

After being released from prison the 27-year-old man returned to live in the same street as the victim’s parents and a panic alarm was fitted in their home.

But Bradford Crown Court heard yesterday that only a week after being let out the defendant, who cannot be named to protect the victim’s identity, began shouting a torrent of abuse outside the house in the early hours.

Prosecutor John-Paul Swoboda said the alarm had been provided by the police because of the family’s fear and it was used on that night.

The man, who had been given a seven-year sentence for rape when he was only 16 years old, threatened to kill his victim’s father, break his legs and burn the house down.

The court heard that while in custody for the matter of rape the defendant had received additional time behind bars for assaulting a prison officer and setting fire to his cell in an attempt on his own life.

In total he had spent nearly 10 years in custody, but because he served all of his sentence he was not on licence at the time of his release.

The drunken defendant was arrested by police and later admitted that he had also taken heroin.

The defendant yesterday pleaded guilty to a charge of affray. Further allegations of making threats to kill and threats to destroy property were not pursued by the prosecution.

Barrister Stephen Wood, for the defendant, described the incident as a “drunken rant” but he conceded that the seriousness was increased because of the context of the offence.

Mr Wood told the court: “I’ve acknowledged that affray will always be treated seriously by the courts because it is an offence of public disorder.

“I also acknowledge that the seriousness of this offence is increased by the context. The court cannot ignore the history of the defendant’s offending.

“The court cannot ignore the victim’s relationship to the victim in the offence of rape.”

But Mr Wood submitted that there were some mitigating factors in the case.

“These were threats. There is no evidence on the face of the papers that the use of actual violence was ever begun or indicated,” he pointed out.

“It appears to have been a drunken rant.

“The police officer who arrested him described the defendant as being intoxicated but nevertheless compliant.

“The defendant was later seen by a nurse in custody who also described him as compliant and not violent.

“He admitted upon arrest drinking heavily all that day.

“He admitted on arrest taking heroin.

“That is why I submit it can be described as a drunken rant.”

Mr Wood submitted that the maximum sentence for affray must be reserved for cases where actual violence was used and physical injury was caused.

Jailing the defendant for two years, Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC said he had gone to the house out of anger and was seen “ranting and raving like a lunatic.”

“You were shouting all sorts of wicked and evil things,” he told the defendant.

The maximum sentence for a charge of affray is three years, but the judge reduced it to two years because of credit for the defendant’s guilty plea.

In addition the judge imposed an indefinite restraining order aimed at keeping the defendant away from the family.

He told the man that if he breached that order he could be jailed again for up to five years.

“My instinct is this has now been put away for keeps but if you do anything serious again to this family or anybody else you may end up with an indeterminate sentence,” he warned the defendant.