The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against the severity of a 13-year prison sentence imposed for nine rapes of his daughter, committed when she was aged between nine and 14.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 22 September 2020, ruled that the 15-year headline sentence was not excessive and that the sentencing judge had made no error of principle in allowing for mitigation. It did not decide whether a higher headline sentence would also have been permissible.
The appellant had pleaded guilty on a full-facts basis on 31 January 2019. He was sentenced on 5 June 2019 to 13 years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended subject to conditions. The sentencing judge had described the offending as repeated over five years and imposed a single composite sentence, saying consecutive sentences were merited but that individual sentences could understate the seriousness of the offences.
The Court of Appeal said the offending involved repeated rapes of a child by her father, a person in a position of great trust. It noted the victim’s reported feelings of isolation and betrayal, and the impact on her relationship with her mother.
The appeal focused on whether the sentence gave sufficient credit for the guilty plea and the appellant’s circumstances. His counsel argued that the plea and lack of previous convictions warranted a lower headline sentence. The prosecution accepted that the plea and the appellant’s difficult background were relevant, but argued that the sentencing judge had already taken them into account.
The court said a guilty plea must receive credit regardless of the circumstances in which it arises, while the weight given to it depends on those circumstances. It rejected the argument that the appellant should receive extra credit for pleading guilty to more than he had admitted when questioned by gardaí. The court said earlier and fuller acceptance of guilt can support greater mitigation, including where there is genuine remorse and a prospect of rehabilitation.
The judges also rejected an invitation to attribute the appellant’s denials to his Nigerian culture, saying that doing so would risk stereotyping and discrimination. They said his background as an asylum seeker might have given him reason to distrust police initially, but noted that he continued to maintain claims of innocence with the probation service after pleading guilty.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s background and given appropriate credit for his plea. It dismissed the appeal.