The Court of Appeal has dismissed J.M.’s appeal against the severity of a sentence for sexually abusing his younger brother over a 10-year period, from 1988 to 1997.
J.M. pleaded guilty on a “full facts” basis to sample counts on the indictment. For three counts of rape contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, he received concurrent sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment, backdated to 23 July 2019. The final two years were suspended on conditions. Other indecent assault and sexual assault counts were taken into account.
The appeal challenged the sentencing judge’s 13-year headline sentence and the reductions made from it. The Court of Appeal found no error in setting that headline figure and dismissed the appeal.
The court said J.M. was almost 14 when the abuse began and his brother was almost 10. J.M. was almost 24 when it ended. His brother’s complaint described abuse at the family home in Cork City between 1988 and 1993, including oral sex and attempted anal penetration. The judgment also records an incident at an uncle’s bar between July 1990 and January 1991. In later Garda interviews, J.M. admitted continuing to abuse his brother while he was asleep from 1993 to 1997, conduct of which his brother had not been aware.
In dismissing the appeal, the court acknowledged that J.M. was a minor during part of the offending and that the case was more nuanced than abuse by an adult parent or step-parent. It nevertheless found that he knew his actions were wrong, continued offending over a prolonged period, and resumed abusing his brother after Gardaí had visited the family home following complaints about his conduct towards other boys. The court said the four-year age difference and family setting involved an exploitation of a power difference.
The sentencing judge had recognised the early guilty plea, cooperation with the investigation, admissions beyond the allegations known to the complainant, and J.M.’s youth. The court also noted that reports described his insight and victim empathy as limited. It held that reducing the headline sentence from 13 to 10 years and suspending the final two years together gave significant credit for mitigation. The suspension conditions included assessment for the Better Lives Programme, engagement with prison psychology services after release, probation supervision for two years, and victim-focused work. The court found the conditions proportionate to the reports before the sentencing judge and saw no reason to interfere.