The Court of Appeal increased Christopher Zinck’s sentence from nine years to 10 years, with the full sentence suspended, after a year-long adjournment to assess his progress. The suspension runs from the date of the original Circuit Court sentence.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore on 6 February 2017 by Mr Justice Birmingham, followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence as unduly lenient under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
In a written judgment on 22 February 2016, the Court of Appeal had found the Circuit Court sentence unduly lenient. It said reports then before it described Mr Zinck’s progress and transformation as “exceptional” and “wholly exceptional”. But given the gravity of the offence, the court was not prepared at that stage to confirm a non-custodial outcome. It adjourned the matter for a year to see whether the reported progress continued, while warning that a non-custodial sentence might ultimately not be possible.
At the review, the court received an updated report from Warton House Private Clinic psychologist Ger Whelan. It was also told that Mr Zinck’s employment situation remained positive, with his employer continuing to support him. He had registered a business name while exploring self-employment.
The report described him as a dedicated father who continued to work, had started a plumbing business and was keen to provide for his family. It said he had turned his life around in an exceptional manner and was expected to continue psychotherapy. These were statements in the report quoted by the court.
The Court of Appeal said Mr Zinck had taken the opportunity left open by the Circuit Court and the appeal court “eagerly and with determination”. It concluded that imprisoning him at that point would not be appropriate, despite the “extreme seriousness” of the offence.
The court increased the sentence to mark the offence’s seriousness and reaffirm its view that the original nine-year sentence was unduly lenient. The 10-year sentence remained suspended. The judgment cautioned that Mr Zinck was “not yet in the clear” and that the suspended sentence continued to hang over him.