What is the effect of publicity in the media on the sentencing of a physician convicted of rape and sexual assault?

Madam Justice Mailhot, in giving the judgment for the court, states at p. 575: "I am in agreement with the trial judge that the consideration of social reprobation justifies the imposition of a term of imprisonment. The publicity found in the newspapers surely has an important dissuasive effect here and certain effects may be foreseen on the accused's career. "One must examine each case on its particular circumstances. In the present one, the appellant is a general practitioner who deliberately committed rape and sodomy on a 35-year old patient who had been referred to him for consultation by another physician. A relationship of confidence was created. The physician abused this confidence and the event caused prejudice to the victim. "I am of the view that the penalty imposed was not sufficiently severe if one takes into consideration the objective seriousness of the acts committed and the circumstances of their commission, as well as penalties previously imposed by this court: Colbert v. A.G. Can. (1981), 24 C.R.(3d) 77, at pp. 82-3. Even if the likelihood of the repetition of the offence does not seem great, I am of the view that the term of incarceration must be increased on the first charge (rape) to four years and also that a term of imprisonment of four years must be imposed in respect of the second charge (sodomy) which terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently."