Judgment: 2017-05-23 · Court archive

Court of Appeal advances release date in unusual sentence appeal

The court moved a man’s release date from 13 September to 16 June 2017 to allow a release plan to be prepared, while leaving the existing sentence conditions in place.

Court of Appeal · 259/16

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The court moved a man’s release date from 13 September to 16 June 2017 to allow a release plan to be prepared, while leaving the existing sentence conditions in place.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 9 June 2016; 29 July 2016

    The judgment, delivered on 23 May 2017, records that the appellant pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court on 9 June 2016 to six counts: two each of rape, section 4 rape and sexual assault. He was sentenced on 29 July 2016 to five years on each count, to run concurrently, with the final three and a half years suspended.

  • 16 June 2017

    The court said immediate release would be inappropriate because there was no release plan. With no objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, it moved the stated release date from 13 September to 16 June 2017 to allow a plan to be prepared. It urged the appellant and his legal advisers to contact the Probation Service immediately. The court stressed that a substantial part of the sentence remained suspended and that all existing conditions continued to apply.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment says the appellant admitted the sexual offences in garda interviews except the rape offences. He was not considered suitable for the Juvenile Diversion Programme because he did not accept full responsibility. He maintained the programme had not been clearly explained; a garda gave evidence that it had, and a signed non-acceptance form was presented to the court.

The Court of Appeal advanced a man’s release date by nearly three months after considering his appeal against conviction and sentence. It left his conviction and sentence intact, saying it could identify no error by the sentencing judge.

The judgment, delivered on 23 May 2017, records that the appellant pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court on 9 June 2016 to six counts: two each of rape, section 4 rape and sexual assault. He was sentenced on 29 July 2016 to five years on each count, to run concurrently, with the final three and a half years suspended.

The offences took place between 2004 and 2007. The appellant was aged between 12 and 14 and a half; the victim was between six and eight and a half. They were related, and the offences took place in a shared relative’s house. The family learned of the offences in 2007, but they were reported to the HSE and then to gardaí in 2013.

The judgment says the appellant admitted the sexual offences in garda interviews except the rape offences. He was not considered suitable for the Juvenile Diversion Programme because he did not accept full responsibility. He maintained the programme had not been clearly explained; a garda gave evidence that it had, and a signed non-acceptance form was presented to the court.

Reports described the appellant as having major depressive disorder, limited cognitive ability and a history of suicidal ideation and at least ten suicide attempts. The court also noted his remorse, that he was doing well in prison, and that he had served 11 months of the effective 18-month term. It acknowledged the serious harm to the victim and the impact on the family.

The court said immediate release would be inappropriate because there was no release plan. With no objection from the Director of Public Prosecutions, it moved the stated release date from 13 September to 16 June 2017 to allow a plan to be prepared. It urged the appellant and his legal advisers to contact the Probation Service immediately. The court stressed that a substantial part of the sentence remained suspended and that all existing conditions continued to apply.

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