Sex offender who violently raped niece loses appeal against 15-year sentence
.png?trim=0,0,0,0&crop=&width=640&quality=70&enable=upscale)
The man had pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault at an address in Waterford
The combined 15-year sentence handed down to a convicted sex offender who violently raped his niece in Waterford has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The court yesterday dismissed a sentence appeal by the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, rejecting the argument by his barristers that “a crushing sentence” had been imposed.
The man had pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to one count of rape against the first victim on a date unknown between September 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, and one count of sexual assault on a date unknown between May 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018, at an address in Waterford.
Two further counts of Section 4 rape and three counts of sexual assault were taken into consideration.
He was sentenced to 11 years in prison with the final 15 months suspended by Ms Justice Karen O’Connor on October 31, 2023.
She noted the aggravating factors in the case included the fact that the offending took place at the man’s home where the victim was being looked after, the level of violence and pain inflicted, the different types of offending on a young child and material which had been searched on the internet by the appellant.
Ms Justice O’Connor directed that the sentence be served following the completion of a six-year sentence imposed the previous week at Waterford Circuit Court for offences against the complainant’s younger sister.
The man had previously pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault against the second victim at the Circuit Court hearing and was sentenced to six years in prison for these offences by Judge Eugene O'Kelly on October 26, 2023.
The court heard the defendant was in his early 40s when the offending occurred.
The man, who is the uncle by marriage of the two victims, has one previous conviction for sexual assault in 2000.
Opening an appeal against the sentences in May, the man’s senior counsel Colman Cody argued that a portion of the six-year term imposed by Judge O'Kelly at Waterford Circuit Court should have been suspended.
He argued that the judge failed to have adequate regard to mitigating factors in the case and the defendant’s personal circumstances.
The personal circumstances were outlined in written submissions and include that the man has separated from his wife since the charges came to light and the fact he has a disabled child, who requires full-time care.
Regarding the sentence imposed for the rape and sexual assault of the first victim, Mr Cody argued the judge should have suspended a greater portion of that sentence to incentivise rehabilitation. He contended the judge failed to have regard to the principles of totality and proportionality.
Mr Cody contended the 15-month suspended portion of the sentence was “an insufficient adjustment” when considering the totality of the sentence to be served by his client.
In response Vincent Heneghan SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the judge in the Circuit Court had acted in a “practical, pragmatic and sensible” manner.
He said the judge looked at the seriousness of the charges and gave the appropriate reduction for the plea of guilty. “I say he acted well within his discretion,” counsel said.
Regarding the sentence imposed at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Heneghan said this offending involved “a brutal attack” on a young girl and the headline sentence of 14 and a half years was appropriate.
In delivering the court’s judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said it had been argued that the Circuit Court judge gave insufficient attention to whether part of the sentence imposed should be suspended.
He said the judge acted correctly and within his discretion by deciding that it was a matter to be left over for the Central Criminal Court as to whether there was going to be a suspended element to the overall sentence.
Moving on to the Central Criminal Court matter, Mr Justice Owens said it was clear that this court took into account that the appellant was in custody prior to his sentencing by the Circuit Court.
He added it was clear that the Central Criminal Court judge suspended an element of the sentence to ensure an overall sentence of 15 years and nine months was imposed, which constituted overall proportionality.
Rejecting the proposition that “a crushing sentence” had been imposed, Mr Justice Owens said that these offences were very significant, with the correct headline imposed by the Central Criminal Court.
He said that the reduction from the headline sentence took into account any discounts that might be appropriate for other mitigating factors, such as the very late guilty plea.
In summary, the court dismissed the appeal.