The Court of Appeal dismissed P. O’D.’s appeal against his rape conviction but allowed his appeal against sentence, quashed the original sentence and imposed the same seven-year prison term with a five-year post-release supervision order.
The judgment, delivered on 19 October 2020, concerned a conviction by a jury in the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork. P. O’D. was convicted on 6 March 2019 of raping S. P. on 10 May 2016 and sentenced on 23 July 2019 to seven years’ imprisonment, backdated to the date he entered custody.
On the conviction appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected three grounds. It held that evidence of statements P. O’D. made in the house after the alleged assault was admissible. The jury could assess the circumstances in which he made and then withdrew the statements, the court said. It also rejected the argument that the handling of toxicology samples created an unfair trial: the evidence did not show that testing would have revealed S. P. had taken Xanax. Finally, it found that the inconsistencies raised by the defence did not make the prosecution evidence too weak to leave to the jury. The court concluded that the conviction was safe.
The sentence appeal challenged the 10-year headline sentence used by the trial judge, the treatment of P. O’D.’s conduct and intoxication as aggravating, and the decision not to suspend part of the term. One ground concerning aggravating factors was abandoned. The Court of Appeal found no error in the 10-year headline figure or in the judge’s treatment of the appellant’s drunken and aggressive behaviour before the offence. It said the seven-year term reflected a substantial three-year reduction for mitigation.
However, the Court of Appeal found an error in the decision not to impose post-release supervision. The probation report assessed P. O’D. as at high risk of general reoffending and moderate risk of sexual reoffending, and said supervision could enable his inclusion in the SORAM process. The court held that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the probation service’s assessment that P. O’D. was suitable for supervision. It quashed the original sentence and resentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, with a five-year post-release supervision period. During that period, he must engage with the Probation Service, follow its conditions and provide his current address and any changes.