Rapist's term cut over judge's comments

The Court of Criminal Appeal has reduced a prison sentence imposed on a Dublin man for rape of the "utmost barbarity" on a Spanish…

The Court of Criminal Appeal has reduced a prison sentence imposed on a Dublin man for rape of the "utmost barbarity" on a Spanish au pair.

The court said that comments by Mr Justice Paul Carney when sentencing the man, including comments referring to the appeal court making "exotic" findings about the judge himself, were "inappropriate" and "indefensible." David Mullen (30), from Knockmore Crescent, Tallaght and Tymon Hall Park, Kingswood, had appealed against the severity of the 15 year sentence imposed on him at the Central Criminal Court in February 2006 after he admitted false imprisonment and rape of the then 23-year-old girl at Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, in April 2005.

Mullen also admitted oral rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery of the woman's credit card and making a threat that she would be unable to have babies. Mr Justice Paul Carney imposed a 15 year sentence and suspended the last 18 months of that term.

Moving Mullen's appeal yesterday, Mr Patrick Gageby SC argued that the trial judge made inappropriate comments at the sentencing hearing and had erred in principle by repudiating the authority of the appeal court.

READ MORE

Counsel referred to comments by Mr Justice Carney that the case was "too important to rush because the DPP wants to do it on the cheap". He said the judge had also stated that he was "attacked behind his back in another place" and that Mr Gageby had "persuaded the Court of Criminal Appeal to make some exotic findings in relation to me".

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal and sitting with Mr Justice Kevin Feeney and Ms Justice Mary Irvine, said the court would set aside the original sentence and impose a term of 14 years, with four years suspended.

Mr Justice Hardiman said this was a "troublesome case" and the court believed the comments by the trial judge amounted to an error in principle in relation to the sentence imposed.

The trial judge's comments were "simply indefensible", "irrelevant, inappropriate and personalised." It was the courts, and not counsel, who make judgments, he said.

In determining sentence, the judge said this was a case of the "utmost barbarity" where the nature of the violence committed against the victim was "gross".