The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence by a man convicted of 25 sexual offences against his daughter, upholding concurrent 15-year prison terms.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 7 December 2017, Mr Justice Mahon said the sentence was within the sentencing judge’s discretion and that no error of principle had been established. The appeal concerned sentence only; the appellant’s appeal against conviction had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal in June 2017.
The convictions followed a jury trial at the Central Criminal Court. They comprised 18 rapes contrary to common law and statutory provisions, and seven rapes contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The sentences of 15 years on each count run concurrently from 18 June 2015.
The judgment said the offences occurred between 2008 and 2012, when the complainant was aged between seven and 11. She alleged that her father raped her routinely, about weekly, with most offences taking place in the family car. The judgment described the offending as repeated and prolonged, and said the complainant’s father was her abuser.
The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive. His submissions cited his previous road traffic convictions, his status as a foreign national and the resulting difficulty of serving a lengthy sentence in Ireland, and the absence of allegations of unusual violence or intentional humiliation. The sentencing judge had treated the road traffic convictions as a minimal factor and acknowledged the added difficulty for a non-national serving a lengthy sentence.
The Court of Appeal said comparing sentences in cases involving sexual abuse of children was difficult because circumstances differ. It described the offending as being at a high point on the gravity scale, citing the complainant’s age, the repeated nature of the rapes and the breach of trust involved when a parent abuses a child. It also noted the serious and lasting effects described in the complainant’s victim impact statement.
The appellant challenged the sentencing judge’s failure to use a two-stage process when setting the sentence. The Court said that criticism might be justified, but the failure alone did not warrant appellate intervention; it described the sentencing judgment as comprehensive and measured.
The sentencing judge had considered rehabilitation but decided against making provision for it, finding any prospect speculative on the facts. The Court of Appeal held that he was entitled to take that view. It dismissed the sentence appeal.