High Court Reporter
The father of the victims in the Munster abuse case who, along with their uncle, raped his children and who had his sentence increased to life imprisonment has been denied an appeal by the Supreme Court after he unsuccessfully argued that the pair were similarly culpable of their "depraved" crimes.
In July last year, the Court of Appeal increased the father's sentence to life for the “grave, systematic, prolonged and depraved abuse” of his “vulnerable” children after the court found his original 15-year sentence was too lenient.
At that undue leniency appeal, the mother of the children and a 51-year-old uncle also had their jail terms increased to 12 and 18.5 years respectively, following the State's application.
In January 2022, the victims’ father (59) was convicted of rape, sexual exploitation, sexual assault and child cruelty and was originally sentenced to 15 years at the Central Criminal Court.
The children's mother (37) who was convicted of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and child cruelty, was originally sentenced to nine years.
The children's uncle was convicted of rape of two of the three children, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation and was given 15 years.
The abuse they were convicted of occurred over 18 months, starting when three of the victims - a young girl and her two brothers - were aged between five- and seven years old.
In total, five family members were found guilty by the jury on all but one of the 78 counts against them following a 10-week trial held at Croke Park in the summer of 2021.
They were all found guilty of sexually abusing the children on dates between August 2014 and April 2016, while the parents were also found guilty of wilfully neglecting five of the children, who were aged between one and nine during this period.
The father applied for a hearing at the Supreme Court last October, submitting that the increased sentence of life he received at the court of appeal was disproportionate to the 18.5 years received by the children's uncle at the same court.
The father-of-six argued that he and the uncle of the children were similarly culpable for their crimes and that his life sentence "constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate disparity".
The father contended that it was a matter of general public importance that justice when sentencing is "consistent and fair" in cases where it is contended there are similarly culpable co-defendants.
The Supreme Court determination says the applicant further submitted that the upward adjustment of his sentence was "without sufficient justification and undermines the principles of proportionality in sentencing".
He further claimed the Court of Appeal had acknowledged the difference in culpability between the two men had been "only marginal."
The DPP submitted to the Supreme Court that no matters of general public importance arose in the case and that a life sentence was available in rape cases, "especially when the offence takes place over a prolonged period of time" and is committed by a parent against their own children.
The DPP further argued that the applicant was the father of the children and that the uncle was convicted of fewer offences and not convicted of the rape of one of the children.
In denying leave to appeal, the Supreme Court determined the Court of Appeal "expressly addressed the heightened culpability of the applicant as the father of the victims".
The determination read that, unlike the co-accused uncle, the father was "in a position of the most primary trust and authority over his children" and that "his actions involved prolonged abuse, neglect, and exploitation of an egregious nature".
The Supreme Court said that the Court of Appeal noted that the father’s "role and the gravity of his offending warranted a more severe sentence, even while acknowledging the marginal difference in overall culpability".
The court said the father had "not demonstrated that this differentiation, rooted in the specific facts of the case, raises issues of sufficient general importance" and refused leave to appeal.
When quashing the father’s original sentence and imposing a term of life imprisonment at the Court of Appeal, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the defendant was a person who the children should have been able to rely upon for all their needs but instead he had “raped and violated” them.
She said his actions and the actions of others had “enormously damaged the lives of their young children” with the consequence they were left “emotionally, physically and psychologically traumatised”.
She said his position of dominance within the family could not be ignored and noted all of the abuse took place against “a background of appalling neglect”.
“These children had nowhere to turn,” she said.
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.
For the latest Waterford News and Sport, tune into WLR News on the hour and download the WLR App for news on demand.
