The Court of Appeal has quashed two six-year sentences imposed on Christopher Farrell for rape offences against J.C. and replaced each with a 12-year sentence, finding the original terms “very seriously inadequate” and “to a very significant extent unduly lenient”.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 17 December 2014, Mr Justice Birmingham said the Director of Public Prosecutions had sought a review of sentences imposed after a contested trial in July 2011. The sentences under review arose from offences on 16 September 2007.
The six-year terms concerned oral rape and rape of J.C. The source says Farrell also received four years for attempted rape in a motor vehicle and four years for false imprisonment of J.C., along with a sentence for sexually assaulting D.McG. The sentences were originally ordered to run concurrently from 22 July 2011. The Court of Appeal’s stated order quashed and replaced only the two six-year sentences; the judgment does not specify a new term for the other offences.
The DPP argued that the sentencing process gave too little weight to planning, the impact on the victims and Farrell’s relevant previous convictions, while placing too much weight on his apology and personal circumstances. The court noted that there had been no guilty plea, and that Farrell had 26 previous convictions, including convictions for assault and assault causing harm to a woman.
The judgment described the events involving the two women. It said D.McG. had accepted a lift after a night out in Drogheda and later woke in a field as Farrell was kissing her and touching her vagina. The court said he stopped, brought her home and asked for her telephone number. J.C. later accepted a lift while distressed and looking for a way home. The judgment said Farrell drove her to a country lane, then moved the car beside a brick wall after she resisted and broke its windscreen. He raped her vaginally, forced her to perform oral sex and attempted anal rape. She suffered bruising to her breast, chest, arms, leg and face.
The court said consecutive sentences should have been considered because the offences were serious in their own right. It did not find that choosing concurrent sentences was an error of principle, but said that if sentences were concurrent, the sentencing judge should account for that benefit by focusing on the higher end of the available range.
The court also commented that parties should be told and invited to make submissions if a prison report is likely to significantly influence sentencing. The judgment does not state that this issue altered the court’s decision to increase the two sentences.