The High Court sentenced P. H. to 10 years’ imprisonment for raping and indecently assaulting his stepdaughter, suspending the final three years subject to conditions. The judge described the effective sentence as seven years, followed by three years of supervision. P. H. was also ordered to register as a sex offender.
A jury found P. H. guilty after a five-day trial of four rape counts and four indecent-assault counts. It acquitted him on 13 other charges, and jurors disagreed on two. The offences covered a period from 1979 to 1986. The sentencing judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 15 October 2007, set out the circumstances the jury accepted in relation to the convictions.
The complainant, identified in the judgment as N., was a child when the offences occurred. The judge described the convictions as involving a breach of trust within the family and offences against a particularly young victim. He noted that the offences had caused her lasting physical and psychological effects.
P. H. denied the offences at trial. The judgment records that he argued he was often away working and suggested the complainant may have been abused by her uncle. The jury rejected his evidence. The judge said the absence of an admission meant there was no sentence reduction for remorse or an early guilty plea. He also said he did not increase the sentence to punish P. H. for contesting the charges or for the trauma caused by the trial.
In setting the sentence, Mr Justice Charleton considered P. H.’s age, health, work history, family circumstances and the long period since the offending. He said there appeared to have been no offending for about 20 years and that no charges had been laid against him outside his family. He said those circumstances affected the sentence, while describing the offences as particularly serious.
The last three years were suspended on condition that P. H. enter a €500 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, attend sex-offender counselling in prison after his appeal, and comply with probation-service supervision for 36 months after release. The judge said the suspended portion could be activated in the event of further serious offending within that period. He also outlined consequences under the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for failure without reasonable excuse to meet supervision conditions. The judgment stated that the sentence was imposed under that Act and that the conditions did not affect P. H.’s right to appeal.