Judgment: 2005-07-13 · Court archive

Court of Criminal Appeal imposes four-year sentence for rape, suspending three years

The court found an error of principle in the original suspended sentence, ruling that compensation could not by itself justify avoiding custody.

Court of Criminal Appeal · [25CJA/05]

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John McLaughlin (Respondent)
  • The complainant
What

The court found an error of principle in the original suspended sentence, ruling that compensation could not by itself justify avoiding custody.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Criminal Appeal imposed a four-year prison sentence on John McLaughlin for rape, suspending the final three years, after finding an error of principle in the original sentence. It ruled that the €10,000 compensation accepted by the complainant could be considered in sentencing but did not prevent a custodial sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal imposed a four-year prison sentence on John McLaughlin for rape, suspending the final three years, after finding an error of principle in the original sentence. It ruled that the €10,000 compensation accepted by the complainant could be considered in sentencing but did not prevent a custodial sentence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions applied under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence imposed after McLaughlin pleaded guilty on 6 December 2004. The trial judge had sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, and required him to enter a €1,000 bond to be of good behaviour.

The Court of Criminal Appeal heard that the complainant had gone home with friends after an evening out on 9 March 2001. McLaughlin and another man, previously unknown to her, were invited into the home. The complainant later went to bed alone, having made clear she was not interested in sexual contact. She woke at about 3am on 10 March to find McLaughlin having intercourse with her. She pushed him away and shouted for help; a male friend pulled him away. McLaughlin fled. He later gave an account suggesting the sexual activity had begun with consent, which was withdrawn during intercourse.

Evidence before the sentencing court described the complainant’s trauma, a chlamydia infection resulting from the assault, and continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She had lost a newly started job and was out of work for three or four months. She attended counselling for two years. She did not give evidence at the sentencing hearing. The guilty plea was entered on the morning of trial, though an indication had been conveyed the preceding week.

The appeal court said rape ordinarily calls for a substantial immediate custodial sentence, with departure justified only in special circumstances. Referring to an earlier Court of Criminal Appeal decision, it rejected any rule or practice that compensation excluded imprisonment. Under section 6 of the 1993 Act, compensation may be ordered instead of or in addition to other measures. The court also said victims should not be drawn into negotiating compensation to influence sentence; their involvement should be limited to indicating whether they will accept an offered sum.

The court considered an appropriate sentence would have been five years or more, but credited the €10,000 payment and the circumstances in which it was made. It said McLaughlin had been given to believe payment might result in a non-custodial sentence. Given that consideration and the aggravating features, including the sexually transmitted disease, it imposed four years’ imprisonment and suspended the last three years.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review