The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by two men against the severity of their sentences for offences against a 14-year-old girl, leaving their 12-year prison terms in place, with the final year suspended on conditions.
The men, identified in the judgment as G.O’H and E.O’H, were each convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury of rape. E.O’H was also convicted of sexual assault. The convictions were upheld in a separate appeal in October 2023. The current appeals concerned sentence only.
The offences took place in April 2017 at a grassy verge known as “the cliffs”, beside a road leaving a seaside town on Ireland’s west coast. The Court of Appeal summarised evidence that the girl had been drinking and was intermittently unconscious. It said both men raped her in succession, and that E.O’H also sexually assaulted her. The court described the circumstances as involving a particularly vulnerable child and a high degree of degradation.
At sentencing in May 2022, the Central Criminal Court set a headline sentence of 13 years for each rape, then reduced each term by one year. It imposed 12 years for E.O’H’s sexual assault, concurrent with his rape sentence, resulting in a 12-year global custodial term. The final year of each man’s term was suspended subject to conditions including probation supervision and offence-focused work.
The appellants argued that the headline sentences were too high and that the sentencing judge had given too little weight to mitigation, including their ages, work histories, family circumstances and cooperation with gardaí and the Probation Service. They also challenged parts of the judge’s account of the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge to the headline sentences. It said the case belonged in the 10-to-15-year category for more serious rape cases under the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidance, rather than the ordinary category typically starting at seven years. It accepted the rapes were not planned in advance, but said the judge could describe the conduct as deliberate and calculated.
The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately recognised the relevant mitigating and personal circumstances and had acted within her discretion in reducing each headline sentence by one year. It said family hardship could have only very modest influence in a case of this gravity. The appeals against severity of sentence were dismissed.