The Court of Appeal dismissed Keith Hearne’s appeal against the severity of a 12-year prison sentence for rape, false imprisonment and sexual assault. It found that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to consider Hearne’s lack of previous convictions and whether his psychiatric condition could make imprisonment more onerous. The appeal court nevertheless held that those errors did not affect the substance of the sentence.
The offences took place on 4 July 2015 in a room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Blanchardstown, where the complainant was setting up an audio-visual display for a convention. The judgment describes Hearne locking her in the room and carrying out a prolonged, violent sexual assault. The attack ended when a third party entered and tackled him. Hearne later pleaded guilty to the indictment counts.
The Central Criminal Court imposed 12 years’ imprisonment on 19 June 2017. The sentencing judge set a 15-year headline sentence for the two rape counts, then reduced it by three years to reflect the guilty pleas. Concurrent sentences were imposed for false imprisonment and sexual assault, and the judge ordered five years’ post-release supervision.
On appeal, Hearne argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to his psychiatric difficulties, previous good character and family support, and wrongly treated items in his bag as aggravating. The prosecution maintained that the judge had considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was not excessive.
The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge concerning the bag. It said the knife threat made during the attack remained relevant even though the knife found in Hearne’s bag was a prop. The court also agreed that the offending was at an extremely serious level.
The court found that Hearne’s mental disorder did not reduce his culpability for the offences: psychiatric reports indicated that he had no active symptoms at the time and that his condition did not account for the conduct. But the sentencing judge had considered the condition only in relation to culpability, not whether it might make a prison term harder to serve. The judge also failed to consider the absence of previous convictions as a mitigating factor. The appeal court said family support was relevant to rehabilitation and that the sentencing judge had had regard to rehabilitation.
The court concluded that the three-year reduction for the guilty pleas was sufficient to account for the omitted mitigating factors. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the 12-year sentence in place.