The Court of Criminal Appeal increased Paul Moore’s sentence for rape from six to ten years after allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application for review on grounds of undue leniency. The court said the new sentence was to run from the date the original sentence began. It did not review the separate sentence for assault causing harm.
Moore had pleaded guilty to rape and assault causing harm. On 21 July 2003, he received six years for rape and three years for assault. The rape charge concerned an incident at an apartment in Dublin’s North Inner City between 27 and 28 July 2001. The judgment describes the complainant as a musician whom Moore met at a public house. It recounts that he took her to his apartment on the pretext of giving her a book, then used force to assault and rape her. She escaped when she said she wanted to use the toilet.
The review had been prompted by an earlier ruling, delivered on 31 January 2005, that the six-year term appeared unduly lenient because the trial judge had not addressed a serious conflict in the medical evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard further medical evidence in November 2005 before deciding the sentence itself.
The defence argued that a severe head injury Moore suffered as a teenager caused an organic personality disorder, impaired his self-control and reduced his moral guilt. The Director’s psychiatrist disputed that diagnosis and argued that the offence showed planning and control. The court found the Director’s medical evidence more persuasive, citing its detailed examination of Moore’s medical and offending history. It also noted that an MRI showed no focal brain injury and that the defence evidence had not adequately investigated chronic alcohol use as a possible cause of brain shrinkage.
The court concluded that Moore had not established that an organic personality disorder caused by the old injury reduced his moral guilt. It said the rape was grave, involved trickery and force, and was committed about a year after his release from prison for a similar rape. The court considered that the new sentence should exceed the six years imposed for the earlier offence. It assessed the appropriate sentence at the time of trial as eleven years, then reduced it to ten to account for the lower original sentence and the anxiety caused by the review.
The court refused a further adjournment sought to present evidence about rehabilitation. It held that decisions about any medical or other rehabilitative regime fell to the Executive, not the court, and made no recommendation on treatment. The increased sentence applied only to the rape count.