A bid by prosecutors to extend the sentence of a GP jailed for a sex attack on a teenager has failed – despite one of Scotland's top judges admitting the initial sentence was "lenient".
Manesh Gill, 39, was convicted unanimously of rape in a Stirling hotel in December 2018 following a trial at the High Court last year. The married dad-of-three sought out the woman on Tinder, giving a false name and posing as a 23-year-old to arrange a meeting.
Gill, from Edinburgh, met the young woman at the hotel bar on December 8 2018, where they had drinks before she tried to leave via a visit to the toilet. But the predatory doctor lied and claimed the loos were out of order in order to entice her back to a room he had booked in advance.
She used the bathroom in his room before Gill plied her with a mug he claimed contained pink gin, which she later told the court had been "very strong". He took a Viagra as the victim began feeling "tired and heavy", before subjecting her to a prolonged and horrific rape ordeal during which she drifted in and out of consciousness.
Hotel night porters found her sitting outside "distraught" and in tears, unwilling to go back inside. Police examiners found a number of injuries to her body after she reported the assault.
Gill was jailed for four years for the brutal assault and placed on the sex offenders' register indefinitely in June for what a judge labelled a "distressing and frightening encounter". The sentence was reduced from five years because of Gill's previously good character and the fact he lost his job.
But Crown prosecutors lodged an appeal against the sentence, arguing that the four-year jail time did not reflect the "gravity" of the offence or the fact it was premeditated. They sought to almost double the sentence to a period of between seven and eight years.
However, solicitors for Gill sought to keep the sentence at the existing four years, arguing that the public was already protected from the shamed doctor, who no longer works as a GP. The case was heard at the High Court Appeal Court.
Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, noted that the judge had not "followed the approach" set out in the rules governing how sentences are meted out to criminals. However, while she said the four-year sentence was "lenient", it was "not excessively so".
In a written judgement, Scotland's second most senior judge said prosecutors had failed to justify their case for a stronger sentence. She wrote: "Examining the factors relied upon by the Crown...in selecting the appropriate sentence, we find that some of these are of no, or minimal, relevance."
She added that the sentence of five years would have been within the guidelines, had it not been reduced by one year. Despite this, Lady Dorrian concluded: "On that basis the sentence selected by the trial judge can be seen to be lenient, but not excessively so, and the appeal must fail."
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - sign up to our daily newsletter here.
