Paul Neilan
A child rapist who led a "double-life" while raping and sexually abusing his former partner's daughter over the course of a decade has had his jail term increased by the Court of Appeal.
The man (78) abused the child over a 10-year period while he was in a relationship with her mother, beginning when the child was aged around eight or nine. He was jailed for seven years but cannot be named to protect the victim's anonymity.
At his sentencing in November 2021, the Central Criminal Court heard that the man abused the child whenever her mother was out of the family home, including on one occasion when she was in hospital.
The man was convicted following a trial in June 2021 of 72 counts, including counts of rape, oral rape, anal rape and sexual assault at locations in the Midlands on dates between May 17th, 1991 and May 16th, 2001. He had pleaded not guilty to all charges and had no previous convictions.
Undue leniency
The State successfully appealed the sentence on grounds of undue leniency and on Tuesday Mr Justice John Edwards said the Court of Appeal would increase the man's jail time by two years.
Mr Justice Edwards said the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Paul McDermott, identified a 15-year headline sentence before mitigation, which resulted in a final sentence of ten years, the final three years of which were suspended.
Mr Justice Edwards said the DPP's view was that the offending was in the category of more serious cases and that the sentencing judge erred in giving insufficient weight to the aggravating factors, which included the period of time of offending, the age of the child at the time of the assaults and the breach of trust committed by the male.
The State had also argued that the sentencing judge had given too much weight to the male's previous good character, lack of any convictions and his old age.
At a previous appeal hearing, Philip Rahn SC, for the State, addressed the male's lack of previous offences and agreed with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy who said the suggestion at trial was the man had been "leading a double life".
Today, Mr Justice Edwards said the court did not believe there was an error made by the sentencing judge in identifying 15 years as a headline sentence and that physical and mental frailty had to be taken into account by the sentencing judge.
Mr Justice Edwards said that health, reduced life expectancy, a more onerous incarceration, fear of intimidation or threats from younger prisoners and concern for an elderly partner could all be aspects taken into account when sentencing an elderly person.
However, these factors cannot "dominate nor override" other aggravating factors in the case, said Mr Justice Edwards, who noted that in cases of people over 70 receiving a significant sentence it could mean that they spend the rest of their lives in prison in "what may amount to a life sentence".
Mr Justice Edwards added that the elderly are "frequently low-risk", are relatively crime free after historical offences and that there was often little need to consider rehabilitation.
The judge said that while the defendant was now just shy of his 79th birthday he had caused his victim a "profound harm and she carries that with her to this day".
Prolonged offending
Mr Justice Edwards said the man had a long period of being of good character but that it carried "little weight" in cases of prolonged offending. The judge also noted that mitigation on grounds of a guilty plea was not available and that he could have spared his victim undergoing cross-examination.
Mr Justice Edwards said the court was satisfied that the man had received an "inappropriately large discount" from the headline sentence that was "substantially outside the norm" which the court would quash.
In re-sentencing the man, Mr Justice Edwards identified a headline sentence of 14 years but only discounted one year for his absence of previous convictions, his good work history and for being a previously supportive family man.
In noting the man's physical ailments, cognitive difficulties, age and isolation, Mr Justice Edwards then suspended the final four years of the sentence, leaving nine years imprisonment to be served.
In her victim impact statement, the woman said the abuse “caused me torture and stress in my life”.
The woman said that from the time it started, she felt terrified and in shock. She said her childhood was taken away from her.
She said she could not work full-time as she never felt comfortable leaving her children with anyone other than her husband in case this might happen to them. She said that as a result of what happened, she no longer had a relationship with her mother.
The woman said she no longer feels the shame that came with the offences as she knows now it was not her fault and it should never have happened.
She said that now that “this horrible abuse” has been acknowledged, she can finally breathe and live her life as she should always have been able to live it.
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800 77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/, or visit Rape Crisis Help.
In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.
