The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a 12-year prison sentence imposed for attempted rape and related offences, finding that the sentence did not fall outside the available range.
The sentence was imposed by the Central Criminal Court on 1 May 2015 for attempted rape, aggravated sexual assault, false imprisonment and threatening to kill. The 12-year terms for attempted rape and aggravated sexual assault were concurrent. Six-year terms for false imprisonment and threatening to kill were also concurrent. The sentences had to run consecutively to an activated sentence from an earlier robbery conviction.
The appeal concerned an incident on 16 and 17 June 2014. The judgment says the appellant and the injured party were siblings. It recounts that she went to his home after he asked her to come, intending to tidy the house. The judgment describes him grabbing her, threatening to kill her with a knife, threatening further violence, and sexually assaulting her. She called 999 while holding her phone behind her back. Gardaí arrived, and the appellant later admitted in interviews that he had attempted to rape her.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors, including his difficult background and an early guilty plea; had relied too heavily on the victim impact statement; and had not properly addressed rehabilitation. The appeal also challenged the judge’s references to offences under section 4 of the Rape Act, although the appellant had not been charged with such an offence.
The Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing judge had mistakenly referred to section 4 offences and had briefly gone to read the offence details from papers he did not have with him. It said he later returned with his papers and addressed the facts, the appellant’s previous convictions, a probation report and a psychologist’s report. The court considered the sentencing remarks as a whole, including the judge’s treatment of the guilty plea and mitigation.
The sentencing judge had identified a pre-mitigation range of 16 to 20 years, taken 18 years as the starting point, and imposed 13 years before reducing the term by one year to account for the consecutive sentence and proportionality. The Court of Appeal said a somewhat lower sentence might have been contemplated, but that possibility alone did not justify intervention. Given the gravity of the offending and its aggravating factors, it could not conclude that the sentences fell outside the available range. It found no error in principle and dismissed the appeal.