Suspended sentence of 106 days detention was unduly lenient for rape by 14 year old

By: Bakshi Mohit BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

Court of Appeal allows appeal from a sentence of 106 days detention, suspended in its entirety, in respect of an offence of rape by a 14-year old boy of a 15-year-old girl, on the grounds of undue lenience, and substitutes a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended in its entirety, where the offender was now over 18 years of age.

 

Burns J: Criminal law – review of sentence on grounds of undue leniency – trial before jury – respondent found guilty of single count of rape – respondent was a child when verdict was delivered – detention of 106 days imposed suspended on certain terms and conditions for 106 days – victim was part of a group of five girls wo met by arrangement the respondent and two friends – met in the west of Ireland during an afternoon – both victim and respondent had no previous experience of drinking alcohol and were sexually inexperienced – respondent was 14 and victim was 15 – two bottles of vodka were brought to a forested area at the back of a playground – cannabis was smoked on the way to the location – victim reported to be most sick and intoxicated – she suffered black out at some point – victim and respondent disappeared – friends went looking from them – victim was seen exiting behind the church and crying he put it in – victim could not remember what had occurred but did remember having stinging pain in her vagina – respondent told group that he had had sexual relations with the victim – one of the victim’s friends called their parents to explain what had happened, which resulted in the guards being called – issue of consent due to her intoxicated state – whether judge erred in principle in imposing a sentence what was inadequate in all of the circumstances – whether judge erred in affording excessive discount from the nominated headline sentence – whether judge erred in principle in treating the fact that the respondent was acquitted by a jury of second charge as a mitigating factor inter alia – whether judge erred in principle in giving excessive weight to general mitigating factors – appropriate reduction would have been less but sentencing judge is entitled to a margin of appreciation and the difference is not a substantial departure from the appropriate headline sentence – reduction of seven months was not excessive nor a substantial departure from the appropriate weight – deduction of 18 months from an already reduced sentence of 21 months was a significant departure and an error in principle – suspending the sentence imposed for only the term that would bring the respondent to his 18th birthday was also an error in principle – respondent re-sentenced – 3.5 years as headline sentence – reduction of 18 months from the identified headline sentence – committing respondent to an adult prison at this stage would serve no useful purpose whatsoever – sentence of two years’ imprisonment suspended in its entirety for 2 years.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.

Register Now

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *