The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the sentence imposed on Patrick Hegarty for rape and sexual assault was unduly lenient, and increased the immediate prison term for the rape convictions from two years to four years.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to have the trial sentence quashed as unduly lenient. In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2013, the court substituted a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, with three years suspended, on the rape counts. It left the sentences on the sexual assault counts unchanged and postponed the additional period in custody until 3 September 2013 to allow Hegarty to arrange his affairs.
Hegarty was convicted by a jury in January 2011 of nine rape counts and eight sexual assault counts relating to a five-week period in summer 1991. The victim was 15 and staying with Hegarty and his family during her holidays. The court described the offences as a series committed against his niece, who had been entrusted to his care. It said he used alcohol to take advantage of her; one sexual assault involved violence and force.
At the Central Criminal Court, the rape sentences were seven years, with five years suspended, to run concurrently. The court also imposed five years, with three suspended, on one sexual assault count and six months on each of the remaining sexual assault counts, all concurrent. The resulting immediate term was two years, which Hegarty had served before the DPP’s application was heard.
The appeal court accepted that Hegarty’s age, the delay, his good character and his conduct in the years since the offences were relevant mitigating factors. It said personal rehabilitation and deterrence were not material considerations in light of the passage of time and his intervening conduct. But it held that these matters could not displace the need for a sentence reflecting the gravity of rape.
The court also found that the trial judge had erred by relying on an Inspector of Prisons report that had not been put in evidence, without giving the prosecution notice and an opportunity to make submissions. There was also no sufficient link between the report’s general account of prison conditions and the prison where Hegarty was likely to serve his term. The appeal court did not rule out considering properly tendered evidence about likely prison conditions in another case.
Because Hegarty had already served the original term, the court said it had to take account of the hardship of returning him to prison. It doubled the immediate term on the rape counts while leaving the sexual assault sentences undisturbed.