There were a significant number of aggravating features to the respondent's offences, including, inter alia, that:
(a) The attack occurred in public, and close to the victim's home;
(b) It lasted for a considerable period of time;
(c) The use of a knife;
(d) The accompanying verbal threats and intimidation;
(e) The degree of violence used;
(f) The respondent was a complete stranger;[3]
(g) The failure to wear a condom;[4] and
(h) The adverse consequences for the victim have been profound.[5]
The respondent targeted a completely innocent young woman walking home, and at knife point abducted and then brutally and repeatedly raped her. Those offences were committed in circumstances involving considerable fear, threats and intimidation. Towards the latter part of the incident, the respondent deliberately taunted the understandably terrified victim. The incident ended not because the respondent desisted, but because the victim managed to escape.
...
The sentence imposed for the abduction count represented just 10% of the available maximum, as did the sentence for the recklessly causing injury count. The sentence of 4 years imposed for each of the three rape counts equated to just 16% of the available maximum penalty of 25 years. After orders for partial cumulation, the total sentence of 6 years and 2 months imprisonment imposed for the first incident, still only represented less than ¼ of the available maximum for a single offence of rape.
In light of the gravity of this offending, and the circumstances of this offender, it is submitted that those individual sentences reveal such manifest inadequacy or inconsistency in sentencing standards as to constitute error in principle.
Those manifestly inadequate individual sentences and the limited orders for cumulation have produced a head sentence that can only be described as manifestly inadequate. As the non-parole period was fixed by reference to that head sentence, it too is manifestly inadequate.