Liam Adams in court for sentencing hearing

Liam Dominic Adams should be sentenced to at least 15 years in jail for raping and sexually abusing his eldest daughter Aine over 30 years ago, a court has heard.

Belfast’s deputy recorder, Judge Corinne Philpott QC, also heard that while the defence do not ‘take issue’ with the prosecution sentencing range, 58-year-old Adams, who still denies any wrong doing, is an unwell man, and is already being held under high security for his own protection.

The father of six was back in Belfast Crown Court 14 today, where just over a month ago he was convicted by majority verdicts of eleven to one by the jury of nine men and three women , of a total of 10 charges, including three of raping his now 40-year-old daughter, three of gross indecency and four of indecently assaulting her when she was aged four and nine between March 1977 and March 1983.

Following submissions from both defence and prosecution lawyers, Judge Philpott told Adams, from Bernagh Drive, in west Belfast, that she would deliver his sentence “as expediously” as she can after considering all matters, including further clarifications from the probation service.

Judge Philpott said that it was only ‘natural’ that Adams would want to know as soon as possible the sentence the faces.

Initially today, eight outstanding charges of sex abuse, not considered at either of Adams’s two trials in April and September-October last, were ordered to be “left on the books, not to be proceeded with, without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal”.

The prosecution then set out a number of guideline cases, for the court, when coming to decide the appropriate sentence.

The table, of aggravating circumstances, such in this case, set out a range of sentencing of between 11 and 17 years, and of between 13 and 19 years, where the reported rapes victims were adults.

The aggravating factors in this case, it was claimed, included Adams’s abuse of trust as a father, preying on his own underaged daughter, who was not only raped over a considerable period of time, but also subjected to other sexual abuses, and the considerable impact this has had, and continues to have on her life.

However, in contrast, the prosecution said in their view “there are no mitigating factors” concerning his crimes and that “this is a case where the starting point should be one of 15 years”.

It was further argued it would be up to the court to adjust this sentence once the aggravating features were taken into consideration.

In addition Adams should be subject to a number of Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPO), and a period of licensed parole following his release.

Defence QC Eilis McDermott, who indicated that “on the topic of appropriate range” of sentencing guidelines, she did not “take issue with the prosecution”, said however, that the court should have regard to the “totality of sentence” and that the court should caution against “double sentencing”.

Judge Philpott, in turn, said that “the lead sentence (the hightest sentence to be imposed), will reflect the overall criminality”.

Ms McDermott also revealed that since his conviction, the authorities have been holding Adams “in the highest security condition in the prison because of the family he is a member of”, and any sentence imposed will make his stay in prison all the more onerous because of this.

She said initially that Adams was a man with no relevant record, and that he still denies the offences against him, “as he has always done”.

Ms McDermott said that for the past 30 years, he has lived with his second wife, with whom he has two daughters and that they are a stable family unit, and are supportive of him.

Health wise, he is unwell, suffering from temporal artiritis, a disease of the arteries, treated with steroids.

The lawyer said that as far as the SOPO conditions may apply, their imposition, were necessary, should also be proportionate, arguing that many of the restrictions sought went behond this.

Ms McDermott had pointed out that in the pre-sentence report on Adams, while the probation services had identified “some risk”, no doubt because of his conviction, they concluded he had not yet “reached the threshold of being a serious risk or potential serious harm to other”.

However, during the legal argument, Judge Philpott commented: “Low risk, does not mean no risk”.