The Court of Appeal has dismissed D.W.’s appeal against the severity of concurrent 18-year sentences imposed for raping the same complainant over a prolonged period. The final two years of each sentence were suspended on conditions, leaving an effective 12 years in custody if those conditions are met.
D.W. pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court on 31 May 2016 to counts 7 to 25 on an indictment. The offences concerned the complainant, identified in the judgment as M.G., and occurred at one address in County Cork. He was sentenced on 29 July 2016. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 15 May 2018.
The appeal court found that the sentencing judge’s 18-year headline sentence was at the high end, but remained within the judge’s legitimate discretion given the circumstances. It noted the abuse of trust by a stepfather, the complainant’s young age when the abuse began, its duration and frequency, and its setting in the family home. The court also gave weight to the sentencing judge’s assessment that the case was more serious than the comparator he considered.
The court addressed a dispute about the pregnancies described in the evidence. It recorded that only one pregnancy resulted from conduct covered by the convictions. The second pregnancy was not to be treated as arising from rape or another crime; the court said the presumption of innocence required that assumption. It found, however, that evidence of continued pressure and control could be considered as part of the surrounding circumstances.
The appeal court rejected the arguments that the guilty pleas and remorse deserved a greater reduction. The sentencing judge had reduced the headline sentence by four years, which the appeal court considered adequate. It also held that the additional two-year suspension properly took account of D.W.’s age and health and offered an incentive for rehabilitation. The court found no evidence that his condition made a substantial prison term unduly oppressive or unjust.
On proportionality, the court said sentencing must balance retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation in light of the crime and the offender’s circumstances. It concluded that the sentencing judge had discretion to give greater weight to retribution and deterrence in this case, and that the resulting sentence was justified. The appeal was dismissed in full.