Judgment: 2020-07-31 · Court archive

Court of Appeal increases Nevin’s sentence for rape and sexual assault to 14½ years

The court found the original concurrent sentences unduly lenient, quashed them and imposed consecutive sentences, suspending the final three and a half years on conditions.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
  • Patrick Nevin (Respondent)
  • RB
  • LW
  • GC
What

The court found the original concurrent sentences unduly lenient, quashed them and imposed consecutive sentences, suspending the final three and a half years on conditions.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 June 2015

    The sentencing court had imposed 14 years’ imprisonment for rape, with the final two years suspended, and eight years for sexual assault, to run concurrently. The terms were backdated to 12 June 2015. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentences failed to reflect aggravating factors, including the offences’ pattern, the complainants’ isolation and vulnerability, Nevin’s relevant previous convictions and the fact that he offended while subject to a suspended sentence. Nevin appealed the severity of his sentence, arguing that the court had not given sufficient weight to mitigation.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has increased Patrick Nevin’s sentence for rape and sexual assault to 14½ years, after finding the original sentences unduly lenient. It quashed the sentences imposed by the sentencing court and ordered consecutive terms, with the final three and a half years suspended on conditions.

The Court of Appeal has increased Patrick Nevin’s sentence for rape and sexual assault to 14½ years, after finding the original sentences unduly lenient. It quashed the sentences imposed by the sentencing court and ordered consecutive terms, with the final three and a half years suspended on conditions.

The judgment, delivered ex tempore on 31 July 2020, concerned offences against two complainants, identified as RB and LW, in July 2014. The court described a pattern in which Nevin contacted women through Tinder, collected them by car and brought them to isolated locations. The offences took place within four days of each other; the judgment also referred to a separate sexual assault against a third woman, GC, within the same month.

The court said RB was raped after initially consensual activity in a car at an isolated location. In LW’s case, the court said Nevin continued touching and assaulting her despite repeated requests to stop. He recorded that assault; the recording lasted 44 minutes. The court said the impact on both complainants was severe and life-changing.

The sentencing court had imposed 14 years’ imprisonment for rape, with the final two years suspended, and eight years for sexual assault, to run concurrently. The terms were backdated to 12 June 2015. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentences failed to reflect aggravating factors, including the offences’ pattern, the complainants’ isolation and vulnerability, Nevin’s relevant previous convictions and the fact that he offended while subject to a suspended sentence. Nevin appealed the severity of his sentence, arguing that the court had not given sufficient weight to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal held that the original net sentence of 12 years was too low. It found that the concurrent structure did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending and said consecutive sentences were appropriate. The court accepted that the sentencing judge had properly imposed an eight-year post-mitigation sentence for the sexual assault, and said it would not intervene in that term.

The court substituted a post-mitigation sentence of 10 years for rape and left the eight-year sexual assault sentence in place, making the terms consecutive. It then applied the totality principle, setting the net sentence at 14½ years and backdating the rape sentence to 12 June 2015. The final three and a half years were suspended on a €100 bond for good behaviour for five years, with probation supervision and compliance with directions from the probation service. The post-release supervision order remained in place, and the judgment states that Nevin is subject to the sex offenders register.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review