The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a man identified as Mr. Z against life sentences imposed for rape, ruling that the nature of the offences amounted to exceptional circumstances under sentencing law.
Mr. Z pleaded guilty in November 2011 to 14 sample counts of rape and child cruelty involving four of his daughters. The pleas came a day after he had pleaded not guilty to 271 counts. The remaining counts were taken into consideration. In December 2011, Carney J. imposed life imprisonment on each rape count and sentences of two and seven years on the cruelty counts, which the judgment describes as the maximum permitted. The appeal challenged the sentences, particularly the life terms.
The appeal court said a guilty plea does not prevent a maximum sentence where exceptional circumstances relating to the offence warrant it. It found that the sentencing judge’s ruling, read as a whole, showed he considered the case exceptional. The appeal court pointed to the prolonged and systematic physical and sexual abuse, its severity, the breach of trust involved, and credible threats to kill the victims. It said the offences belonged to an exceptional category involving prolonged violence against people entitled to trust the perpetrator.
Mr. Z’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to the late guilty plea, which spared the victims from giving evidence, and to his dysfunctional background, alcohol abuse and prospects of rehabilitation. The court accepted that a plea can reduce a sentence, but said the plea here came only after a not-guilty plea and was of little value because it had not removed the victims’ earlier anxiety about a contested trial.
The appeal court also clarified that a dysfunctional background and substance abuse can, depending on the circumstances, be material mitigation. It concluded, however, that any mitigation on those grounds, or from the prospect of rehabilitation, could not outweigh the exceptional nature of these offences. It said the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the threats when assessing whether the case warranted the maximum penalty, while stressing that imprisonment cannot be imposed solely to protect against possible future offending.
The court found no error in principle in imposing life sentences and dismissed the appeal. The judgment also set out general guidance that prosecutors should assist sentencing judges with relevant sentencing ranges and explain where an offence falls within them.