The Court of Appeal reduced R. Mc.C.’s sentence for sexual offences against two brothers from seven years to an aggregate four years’ imprisonment, finding the original sentence excessive and not fully compatible with the totality principle. The sentence runs from the same date as the Circuit Court sentence.
The appeal concerned sentence severity, not the convictions. The brothers, identified in the judgment as O.F. and D.F., were children when the offences occurred between 1972 and 1973. The appellant was convicted after a contested trial on 26 July 2017 and sentenced in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 11 November 2017.
The judgment says the offences against O.F. included repeated abuse at the family home and during car journeys, as well as incidents connected with fishing trips and visits to local cinemas. Three specific offences against D.F. took place in the family home’s living room. The court described the offending as very serious and noted the substantial impact on both complainants, including O.F.’s victim impact statement.
The appeal court also considered that the offences had occurred about 45 years earlier, the appellant’s age and health, and testimonials submitted on his behalf. It noted that he was already serving a sentence imposed in Sligo in 2014 for offences against five other complainants. Those Sligo offences occurred later than the Dublin offending, although the Sligo convictions were recorded before the Dublin convictions. The court treated the maximum sentence for each Dublin offence as capped at two years, as the sentencing judge had done.
The court set aside the seven-year sentence and substituted consecutive one-year terms on counts 14, 15, 16 and 18. It left in place the 18-month sentence on count 29, concurrent with those terms, and directed that the remaining counts with convictions be taken into consideration. The court said a four-year aggregate sentence for the Dublin matters was more appropriate. It did not disturb the underlying convictions.