Judgment: 2019-10-15 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds 15-year sentence for JH over rape and indecent assault of young niece in Limerick

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • JH (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds 15-year sentence for JH over rape and indecent assault of young niece in Limerick

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Limerick
  • Central Criminal Court
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 6 December 2013; 9 March 2015

    On 9 March 2015, Mr Justice Carney sentenced JH to 15 years' imprisonment on the rape offences, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts. The term was backdated to 6 December 2013 to reflect time spent in custody.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal accepted that those matters were somewhat to his credit but held that the trial judge was not required to reduce the sentence because of them.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a 15-year prison sentence imposed on JH for a series of rape and sexual offences against his young niece in Limerick during the 1980s.

JH was convicted after a contested Central Criminal Court trial in February 2015. The offences were committed between the end of 1984 and the end of 1988, when the complainant was aged between seven and 11.

The case involved three rapes, an attempted rape and several counts of indecent assault. The judgment records offences at different locations in Limerick, including two inside a dwelling, one in a garage linked to JH's home, an attempted rape near a tyre factory and indecent assaults in a car and other domestic settings.

On 9 March 2015, Mr Justice Carney sentenced JH to 15 years' imprisonment on the rape offences, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts. The term was backdated to 6 December 2013 to reflect time spent in custody.

JH appealed the severity of the sentence after an earlier conviction appeal had been dismissed. His lawyers argued that the sentencing judge was wrong to say there was nothing substantial in his favour. They pointed to his cooperation with the investigation, his voluntary return on foot of a European arrest warrant and the fact that he did not seek bail.

The Court of Appeal accepted that those matters were somewhat to his credit but held that the trial judge was not required to reduce the sentence because of them.

The court stressed the seriousness of the offending. It had continued over several years, involved a very young child, arose in a relationship of trust between uncle and niece, and occurred against a background of relevant previous sexual convictions.

The judges concluded that although 15 years was a severe sentence, it was not outside the permissible range and no error of principle had been shown. The appeal was dismissed.

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