Man’s appeal against 11-year sentence for raping sister dismissed

A 40-year-old man convicted of the rape and sexual assault of his younger sister over a number of years has had an appeal against his 11-year prison sentence dismissed.

“There was serious abuse of familial trust here. The offending did, in our view, involve a more-than-usual degradation of the victim, and intimidation beyond that normally associated with the offence,” Mr Justice John Edwards said at the Court of Appeal on Thursday.

The man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the injured party, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in January 2016, having been charged with 48 counts of rape and sexual assault. He was found guilty after a five-day trial and sentenced to 11 years, which was reduced from a headline sentence of 14 years.

The offences occurred between January 1999 and December 2005, when the appellant was aged between 16 and 22 and his sister was between 10 and 16 years of age.

Jacques Nienaber says Leinster got it wrong in three areas against Toulouse

---

Your top stories on Wednesday: TikTok video prompts inquiry into HSE data breaches; roadside drug tests for drivers in serious crashes

---

Several farmers had a notion to grow ‘something different’ in west Cork in the 1980s. The idea took off

---

Michael McDowell: Irish ‘sneaking regarders’ of Trump are naive about the threat he poses to democracy

---

There were three grounds to the appeal of the sentence made by counsel for the appellant: that the sentencing judge failed to adhere to proper sentencing principles and imposed an excessive penalty; that the judge erred in her assessment of the gravity of the offences; and that she erred in not suspending a portion of the sentence.

Delivering judgement, Mr Justice Edwards noted it had been argued that there were differences in the gravity of some of the offences, as a minority were committed while the appellant was legally a child, and these might have attracted lower sentences.

“The majority of the offences, and certainly the majority of the more serious variety, were committed after the appellant had attained his majority, and indeed he continued to offend up until aged 22.”

Mr Justice Edwards continued: “We do not agree that the gravity of any of the offences committed before he was 18 was necessarily less, simply by virtue of him being legally a minor.

“Some offending, such as rape and murder, is so notoriously egregious that society may reasonably expect its depravity or turpitude to be well appreciated by those who are approaching, but not yet traversed, the notional statutory line dividing childhood from adulthood,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

He went on to say that there was no evidence offered to the sentencing court that the appellant’s level of maturity had anything to do with why he committed these offences.

“We find no error in how the sentencing judge approached the structuring of her sentencing,” he said. “The appellant’s culpability was significant in this case, and the harm done was immense. We therefore find no error in the sentencing judge’s nomination of 14 years as her starting point in respect of the rape offences, and of five years as her starting point in respect of the sexual assault offences.

“The single biggest mitigating factor that was potentially to be availed of by this appellant was not availed of by him - he did not plead guilty,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

He also noted that there has been no meaningful expression of remorse in this case. “Accordingly, in the absence of a plea and/or an expression of remorse, the scope for reducing the pre-mitigation sentences nominated by the sentencing judge was greatly reduced.

“There was little scope for the suspension of any portion of the sentences in this case in the absence of some expression of remorse and the acceptance of responsibility. The appellant still maintains he has done nothing wrong, and it follows from that that there is nothing, as far as he is concerned, to rehabilitate or reform,” he said.

The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The trial court heard that when the injured party was 10, she received a “love bite” from the appellant, who was then aged 16.

The appellant then began sexually assaulting her through inappropriate touching, before the sexual assaults escalated in seriousness, to include digital penetration and oral rapes. These sexual assaults and rapes continued for years and escalated to other forms of rape.

Most of the offences were committed in the injured party’s home.

In her victim impact statement, the woman said that her innocence had been stolen and her life had been turned into “a black hole of uncertainty, fear and terror”.

She succumbed to regular bouts of stress-related physical illness and doubts that she will ever recover. She stated that the way the case was defended made her feel physically sick. She attributed the lack of remorse shown by her brother as being a factor in her mental devastation.