The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused leave to appeal against sentences imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to rape and sexual assault offences against four of his daughters.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 21 May 2004, says the accused pleaded guilty to ten sample rape charges involving three daughters and two sample sexual assault charges involving a fourth. The indictment contained 153 counts. The offences occurred over about 20 years, when the girls were aged between six and 12.
The trial judge imposed life imprisonment on each rape count and five years on each sexual assault count, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appeal court said the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the scale and systematic nature of the abuse, the involvement of four children, its duration and its serious, lasting impact amounted to exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances permitted maximum sentences despite the guilty pleas.
The accused argued that his guilty pleas and an early, comprehensive statement to gardaí were significant mitigating factors. The court considered earlier decisions on guilty pleas and rape, alongside section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. It said the section allowed a court to impose the maximum sentence where exceptional circumstances relating to the offence warranted it.
The appeal court also said consecutive sentences would have been open to the trial judge. The concurrent sentences therefore did not amount to the maximum available sentencing arrangement, and allowed the accused to use parole procedures earlier than consecutive sentences would have.
The court rejected other grounds raised for the accused. It said a psychiatrist’s report, which described the prognosis as extremely guarded while noting expressions of guilt and remorse, did not greatly aid his case. The court also said the absence of previous convictions did not establish good character in light of the series of offences to which he had pleaded guilty.
The accused further argued that newspaper articles sent to the trial judge should have disqualified him from sentencing. The appeal court said judges must recognise prejudicial material and avoid being influenced by it. It was satisfied that the judge’s awareness of the articles meant they had not affected his decision.
The court’s decision was to refuse leave to appeal. The judgment sets out its reasons for that refusal; it does not grant leave or alter the sentences.