Director of Public Prosecutions v JH [2019] IECA 355 (15 October 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT (Ex tempore) of the Court delivered on the 15th day of October 2019 by

1. The matter before the Court involves an appeal against severity of sentence. The

sentence appeal arises in circumstances where an earlier appeal against conviction was

2. On 9th March 2015, the appellant was sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment in

respect of rape offences and to lesser concurrent sentences in respect of other counts

that had appeared on the indictment. He was sentenced by the late Mr. Justice Carney.

3. The sentence hearing took place against a background of a contested trial which had

taken place in February 2015, which had resulted in convictions. The trial related to

offences that were committed between 31st December 1984 and 31st December 1988.

The injured party in the case was the appellant’s niece and she was aged between 7 and

11 years at the time of the offences. The case involved three rapes, an attempted rape

and a number of counts of indecent assault. The offences occurred at different locations in

Limerick. One rape occurred in a particular dwelling, on a washing machine, another in

the same dwelling on a sofa in the sitting room, those were in the years 1984 to 1985,

another in a garage linked to the appellant’s home also dated from the same period.

There was an attempted rape in the vicinity of a tyre factory which was close by and there

were a number of incidents of indecent assaults at various locations, these included one

at bath time, one which saw the injured party going to bed with her aunt and the

appellant then returning to the house, getting into bed and proceeding to indecently

assault her on the vaginal area – this also involved him blocking her mouth. Another

4. In terms of the appellant’s background and personal circumstances, he was 61 years of

age at the time of the sentence hearing and so he is now 66 years old. He has lived for

significant periods of his life in England and was in England when these matters came to

light. He cooperated with the investigation, making himself available for interview, and at

a later stage, voluntarily returned, in the sense of not resisting his return, on foot of an

5. By way of background, he comes from a very large family; he was one of 23 children. He

himself is married with three children, but is separated. He has a number of previous

convictions recorded. These include offences both of a sexual nature and non-sexual

nature, but it must be said that these offences were not of the same order of seriousness

as the Court was required to deal with in this case. One prior sexual offence, one of

indecent assault, was dealt with in Ireland by the imposition of a six-month sentence –

that was in 1973. A sexual offence in England was dealt with by way of a probation order

in 1974. Subsequent to the offending with which the Court was concerned, in 1995 and

1998, convictions in England are recorded for indecent assault. These involve both males

and females. Of concern, is that there are more recent convictions in England, in 2007,

2009 and 2013, for failing to observe the terms of a supervision order, the failure to

6. When passing sentence, the judge in the Central Criminal Court indicated that he saw the

appropriate sentence as one of 15 years imprisonment. He then commented that he

found nothing of substance in favour of the appellant. He is criticised in this regard, but,

being of that view, the judge then proceeded to impose that sentence, which is, of

course, the sentence that is now the subject of this appeal. The appellant says that the

judge erred in saying that there was nothing in substance in favour of the appellant. It is

accepted in that regard that there was not a plea of guilty or the expression of remorse,

but it is said there were other factors present, such as the cooperation with the

investigation and the fact that the surrender under the EAW was not contested. It is said

that these are matters that are to the appellant’s credit, as was the fact that he did not

seek bail. In that regard, it is the situation that the sentence imposed was backdated to

6th December 2013 to take account of the period of time spent in custody when bail was

7. The appellant has pointed to a number of cases by way of comparators and suggests that

the present sentence is out of line with those sentences. In responding, the DPP, for her

part, points to a number of cases which, she says, that similar sentences have been

imposed in respect of what she says were similar offending. On behalf of the appellant, it

is said that his case is distinguishable from the cases on which the DPP places reliance, in

that, in those cases, while broadly similar sentences were imposed, in those cases, the

Court was dealing with sample offences, whereas here, the Court was dealing with

8. On a number of occasions, this Court has made the point that before it can intervene,

something of the nature of an error in principle must be identified. Before the Court would

be minded to intervene, it will have to have emerged that the sentence imposed was one

that fell outside the available range. In this case, the Court acknowledges that the

sentence that was imposed was a severe one. However, the Court has not been

persuaded that it fell outside the available range. In the Court’s view, the offending here

was very serious. The factors that make it serious are self-evident. The fact that the

offending occurred over a significant period of time, some four years, albeit that the rape

offences were within a narrower time period, the fact that the offender was very much

older than his victim, the young age of his victim – between 7 and 11 years – the breach

of trust involved, uncle and niece, to refer to just some of the factors present. There is

also the fact that, somewhat unusually, there are relevant previous convictions, albeit not

convictions of the same level of seriousness. The Court has not been persuaded either

that the judge was in error in concluding that there was nothing of substance that would

justify or require a departure from the sentence identified as the appropriate starting or

headline sentence. It is the case that there were factors present which were somewhat to

the credit of the appellant, but the Court does not feel that the judge was obliged to treat

those as being of such substance and of such magnitude as to compel a departure.

9. Overall, the Court’s view is that while the sentence imposed was a severe one, it was one

that cannot be said to have fallen outside the available range. No error in principle has

been identified and the Court must dismiss the appeal.

Result: Dismiss

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v JH [2019] IECA 355 (15 October 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019IECA355.html Cite as: [2019] IECA 355

Irish Court of Appeal