7 circumstances justifying a departure from the mandatory sentence ordained by law. It also took cognisance, as the trial court had done, of both the prevalence and seriousness of the crime of rape and its traumatic consequences for its victims and the fact that the respondent had betrayed the complainant’s trust. It nonetheless lamented the fact that the respondent’s personal circumstances – which it enumerated – were in its view not accorded sufficient weight in determining an appropriate sentence. On this score it will be recalled that in dealing with count 1 the High Court had indicated that the fact that the complainant had been a willing party to the sexual act would be a mitigating factor in relation to sentence. The High Court concluded that the trial court had overlooked material factors and that the sentences were therefore not appropriate ones. [14] The High Court then proceeded to consider what sentences to impose on the respondent in substitution of those imposed by the trial court. In relation to the inquiry as to whether or not substantial and compelling circumstances existed, it said: ‘The personal circumstances of the appellant, the fact that he is a first offender who spent 18 months in custody awaiting trial, the nature of his offence and the limited effect that it had on the complainant and the serious consequences that his offence already had for himself, cumulatively constitute substantial and compelling circumstances that justify the imposition of a lesser sentence.’ It then imposed a globular sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, treating all counts as one for purposes of sentence, five years of which were conditionally suspended. [15] Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, particularly in respect of count 1, which it believed to be disproportionate to the gravity of the rape perpetrated by the respondent – and other issues which are no longer material for present purposes – the State applied for and was granted special leave to appeal against sentence to this court.