the record of interview. In addition his change of behaviour since then indicates remorse; (iii) because of the prisoner's prior convictions I am unable to treat him as a first offender. However he has had a very deprived childhood and the offences appear to have been committed at a particularly low point in his life. I note that there are no prior offences against the person and in particular no prior offences of a sexual nature; (iv) I take into account that at the time of this offence

the prisoner was a juvenile and is still entitled to be treated as if he were a juvenile for sentencing purposes notwithstanding that he is now seventeen years of age. Consequently the element of general deterrence does not weigh so heavily as it would have had he been an adult. Nevertheless I consider that I must make some allowance for general deterrence. The offence of rape is a serious one, and although this offence was at the lower end of the scale, I do not think that the circumstances are so wholly exceptional that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. Accordingly I do not think that either a wholly suspended sentence or a community service order would adequately reflect the need for general deterrence, the gravity of the offence, the need to punish the prisoner for what he did or promote respect in the community for the justice of the criminal law;

(v) I take into account that the prisoner's life has, since January 1992, changed considerably for the better. I accept that he has given up drinking, that he now has the love and support of his family to an extent that he has never had before, that he has an apprenticeship, and a boss who speaks very highly of him indeed. I note also the evidence relating to the prisoner's changed attitude, and how he gets along so well with his cousin's family, and the faith and trust he has built up with his near relatives. I assess his prospects of rehabilitation as exceptionally high. I believe that he is unlikely to offend again. I do not consider that I need take into account any element of self-deterrence. I consider that there is a serious risk that his prospects of rehabilitation will be significantly impaired by a long period of imprisonment. For this reason I am going to suspend most of the term of imprisonment I am about to impose. 30. I do not consider home detention is appropriate. The maximum period of home detention allowable is twelve months. I consider that an appropriate head sentence in this case is four years' imprisonment. When a home detention order is made, the court's sentence is suspended and once the period of home detention is completed, the home detention order no longer remains in force: see s19 of the Criminal Law (Conditional Release of Offenders) Act. This would leave the balance of the four year sentence without any supervision or consequences to the prisoner once he had complied with the home detention order. I consider this to be undesirable, and inappropriate in a case such as this. 31. I do not consider a period of detention in a juvenile detention centre is appropriate. The maximum period of detention available to me, consistent with the philosophy behind s53(6) of the Juvenile Justice Act, is until he has obtained the age of eighteen years. As Kearney J observed in R v Lui (at 9) the policy of the Act is that it is considered inappropriate that persons should be held in detention centres beyond the age of eighteen years; and there is no specific provision in the Act, as there is in other jurisdictions, for the conversion of a period of detention into a period of imprisonment, after a detainee obtains the age of eighteen years. There is no mechanism by which I can impose a head sentence comprising a period of detention until aged eighteen with the balance to be served in a prison. I therefore do not consider that detention is a realistic option in this case, given that I consider that a head sentence of four years' imprisonment is called for. 32. The sentence of the Court is that the prisoner will be imprisoned for four years but I direct that after serving six months of that sentence he be released upon his entering into a recognisance in the sum of $2,000 to be of good behaviour for the balance of his sentence, viz, three and a half years. It is a condition of the bond that he be subject to the supervision of a Probation Officer during the period of the recognisance and will obey his lawful directions as to employment, residence and associates. I consider that this sentence adequately reflects the various competing considerations to which I have referred, including the prisoner's age, his prospects of rehabilitation, the need for general deterrence, and the need to ensure that the community is protected by a just, yet merciful, sentence. 33. I order that the prisoner's sentence will be deemed to have commenced on 21 August 1992. 34. Some people may regard this as a lenient sentence and a sign that the courts are lenient with rape. I want to emphasise that this is not the case. In most cases of rape, offenders can expect condign punishment. In recent times terms of imprisonment of ten years and longer have been imposed. In a proper case, I would have no hesitation in imposing the maximum penalty fixed by law - imprisonment for life. The circumstances of this case are unusual, and not to be regarded as setting any precedent for penalties for the crime of rape generally.