The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of life sentences imposed on Michael O’Brien for sexual offences against his then girlfriend and her mother. It found no error of principle requiring it to intervene.
The sentences were imposed by the Central Criminal Court on 3 May 2016, after O’Brien pleaded guilty to offences including rape and aggravated sexual assault. The Court of Appeal said the pleas were entered at an early stage. The trial judge imposed life sentences for each offence, consecutive to a sentence O’Brien was already serving for false imprisonment.
The appeal focused on whether discretionary life sentences were justified. O’Brien argued that the sentencing judge had given undue weight to his personal circumstances, particularly his criminal record, and that the offences, although very serious, did not warrant life sentences when compared with other cases. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.
The judgment described three incidents involving two complainants over a short period in July 2015. It said the offences against the mother took place during a prolonged incident at her home, where O’Brien forcibly entered, assaulted and threatened her with a knife, tied her with belts and sexually assaulted her. The court noted that she was largely housebound. The judgment also recounted two serious incidents involving her daughter in the days before the attack. During the later incident, the daughter heard part of the assault on her mother through a phone message and contacted Gardaí.
The court said the offences had to be assessed in light of both their gravity and O’Brien’s relevant circumstances. It noted his previous conviction for sustained sexual offending against his daughter, for which he had received a lengthy prison sentence, and that the present offences were committed while he was on bail for serious offences that later resulted in a significant sentence.
The court reaffirmed that discretionary life sentences are rare and that appeals against them are upheld only in very rare cases. It said the combination of two complainants, three serious incidents, gratuitous violence and the circumstances of the attack on the mother placed the case in the exceptional category.
The judges observed that the trial judge could have reserved life sentences for the most serious offences and imposed concurrent sentences for the others. But they said that approach would have had no significant practical effect, and the choice made did not justify appellate intervention. The appeal was dismissed.