Court of Appeal: 12-year sentence upheld for violent rapes of 17-year-old girl at party

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] IECA 72
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was appropriate, noting that there were very minimal mitigating factors in the case. Additionally, violence, deceit and a breach of trust were aggravating factors in the case. However, it was stated that the sentence was at the outer limits of the trial judge’s discretion in the case.

Background

The victim attended a friend’s party at the family home in October 2015. The house was located in a rural address in County Clare. At the time, the victim was 17 years old and the appellant was 27 years old.

The party was an 18th birthday celebration for the appellant’s sister and the victim did not know the appellant or his family. The victim became intoxicated at the party. At one point, the victim and the appellant walked down a road outside the house. The appellant then pushed her to the ground and raped her. They returned to the house despite the victim “roaring crying.” The appellant threatened her to not say anything.

The family had organised a minibus to take people home but it had already left by the time the victim and the appellant returned to the house. The victim had lost her handbag and her phone was out of battery. The appellant refused to call her a taxi and all the other family members went to bed.

As such, the victim had no practical reality of getting home that night. While in the sitting room, the appellant approached the victim from behind and raped her again. It was only the next morning that the victim was able to leave the house.

Following the disclosure of the offending, the Gardaí charged the appellant with two counts of rape. He was convicted of both counts in the Central Criminal Court in June 2019, with the court imposing concurrent sentences of 12 years and 14 years with the final two years suspended.

The sentencing judge ruled that there were almost no mitigating circumstances in the case. The appellant had denied that the rapes occurred, had defended the case fully and did not show any sign of remorse. Further, the court held that the attack was done by a mature man on a vulnerable, intoxicated minor. Deceit was used to lure the girl outside the house and violence was used to rape her twice.

The court took account of the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions and noted that he had a young family by the time of the trial.

In his appeal, the appellant argued that the headline sentences were too high having regard to the principles identified in The People (DPP) v F.E. [2019] IESC 85. It was submitted that the rapes did not fall into the “more serious cases” identified in F.E., which carried headline sentences of between 10 and 15 years. It was said that the rapes did not involve “a more than usual level of degradation of the victim or the use of violence or intimidation beyond that associated with the offence, or the abuse of trust.”

Further, the appellant relied on The People (DPP) v W.D. [2008] 1 IR 308 and submitted that “ordinary rapes” should attract a 5-year sentence. It was submitted that a 12-year sentence was “unusual” unless additional violence or pre-meditation were present (see F.E.).

Finally, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge failed to account for his unusual heart condition and that she erred by referring to a difference in class between the appellant and the victim.

Court of Appeal

It was held that the central issue of the case was whether the offending fell within the “middle category” of rape sentences derived from F.E. The court began by holding that the sentencing judge was not influenced by class in the proceedings. On examination of the transcript, the judge’s comments were “no more than a passing reference” and did not materially contribute to the decision.

Further, the appellant had recovered well from his heart condition and there was no evidence that this would disadvantage him in a prison setting.

The court held that there were very few mitigating factors in the case. He could not benefit from a guilty plea or a statement of remorse. He was entitled to some credit for his otherwise crime-free life, but this was reflected in the two-year suspension of the 14-year sentence.

While the sentence was at the outer limits of the trial judge’s discretion, the court stated that there was no error of principle by the judge. The court noted, inter alia, the age gap between the parties, the young age and vulnerability of the victim, the serious breach of trust by the appellant, the luring of the victim outside for the first rape and the violence of the attacks. The court also noted that the victim was stranded at the house and a taxi was refused before the second rape occurred.

The court determined that “the entire episode involved two separate incidents of serious sexual violence” on an intoxicated minor. She was left “at the mercy of the appellant” and he exploited the situation.

Conclusion

It was held that the offending was a vicious attack with no remorse being expressed by the appellant. The F.E. case did not impose a rigid classification and it was the combination of factors in the case which justified the sentence. The appeal was refused.