A suspended sentence imposed on an elderly man after he pleaded guilty to raping his sister on dates in the early 1950s, and to indecently assaulting his niece in the late 1980s, was too lenient, the Court of Criminal Appeal was told yesterday.
Counsel for the DPP, Mr Patrick Gageby SC, argued that a custodial sentence should have been imposed on the man, who is married, the father of a large family, in his late 60s and retired.
In June 1997, Mr Justice Morris, now President of the High Court, imposed a sentence of five years' penal servitude, which was suspended, when the man pleaded guilty to three sample charges of raping his sister in 1950 and 1951, when she was 14, near their home in the midlands. He was also given a suspended five-year sentence for indecently assaulting his 15-year-old niece in 1988.
When sentencing, Mr Justice Morris said he was suspending the sentence only because he thought the shame the whole affair had brought on an otherwise decent family was sufficient punishment and because the suspension would ensure that no further such offences would occur.
Presenting the DPP's appeal against the decision to suspend sentence, Mr Gageby said that a court, when sentencing a person for rape, should impose a substantial and immediate custodial sentence except in exceptional circumstances.
Mr Gageby argued that Mr Justice Morris had erred in law by imposing a suspended sentence.
He said that a victim impact assessment on the niece, who was now in her 20s, had shown that she had suffered academic deterioration in her studies. She had also suffered sleep problems, including nightmares, and continued to have feelings of guilt, depression and flashbacks.
Mr Seamus Sorohan SC, for the man, said there was no doubt that these were dreadful, low, despicable and shameful acts. But his client, in pleading guilty, had been forgiven by his sister in her mercy, while his wife had supported him throughout.
Counsel said that the suspended sentence had been imposed by a judge, now President of the High Court, who was not unacquainted with criminal cases, both in the High Court and the Special Criminal Court. A margin of discretion had to be left to a trial judge in deciding what sentence should be imposed.
It would be unjust, 19 months after sentence was imposed, to now come to a decision that his client should serve a custodial sentence, Mr Sorohan argued.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty, presiding, said the case was one on which the Court of Criminal Appeal would wish to reflect before reaching a conclusion. It would issue a reserved judgment.