A man jailed for the rape of a woman he had just met has failed to have the sentence reduced.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Keith Dutton, 45, asked the woman for a cigarette and then offered to carry her groceries from the Canberra Centre in September 2011.
He then talked his way into her Braddon flat, offered her drugs once inside, and left briefly only to return with another man.
Dutton refused to leave and spent the evening boasting of his criminal history, including telling the victim he had once been shot by police after taking his family hostage.
Dutton demanded sex and forced the woman to give him oral sex for 10 minutes.
She reported the assault to police the following day.
Dutton pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and was in April jailed for five years, with a non-parole period of three years, by Chief Justice Terence Higgins.
"Women are entitled to be protected in their own homes," Chief Justice Higgins said in handing down the sentence.
Dutton originally appealed the severity of the sentence, but his defence team instead argued the sentencing judge did not properly take into account Dutton's deprived childhood.
Defence barrister, James Sabharwal, said a recent High Court case, Bugmy v The Queen, found that childhood disadvantage should be taken into account in sentencing.
Mr Sabharwal said the Wilcannia man's background of profound childhood disadvantage and subsequent substance abuse issues into adulthood were not given enough weight in sentencing.
The appeal judges – Justice Hilary Penfold, Justice Richard Refshauge and Justice John Burns – did not require Director of Public Prosecutions Jon White to argue against the application.
Instead the judge briefly adjourned the matter before rejecting the appeal.
Justice Penfold acknowledged the Dutton case fit the Bugmy case, whereby his profound childhood disadvantage did not diminish over time and may mitigate the sentence.
But Justice Penfold said that point must be balanced against the need to protect the community from the offender.
The judge found the five year jail term could actually be seen as lenient.
Justice Refshauge and Justice Burns agreed with the reasons to dismiss the case.