When the X-case man had his sentence cut from 14 to four years, Mr Justice O'Flaherty said he was unlikely to offend again, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.He was wrong
The first trial of the man jailed for 3½ years yesterday for again sexually abusing a young girl was inevitably a difficult one for the judge in the Circuit Criminal Court at the time, Mr Justice Buchanan.
The man's actions in abusing and impregnating a 14-year-old girl led to one of the most serious constitutional crises in the State's history, to a landmark Supreme Court judgment on abortion and to three constitutional amendments, two of which were passed.
The publicity in the case was immense, leading the man's lawyers to argue - unsuccessfully - as far as the European Court of Human Rights that he could not have a fair trial. As a result of this delay, his case did not come to trial until two years and five months after the allegation first came to light.
The DNA evidence, drawn from the foetus that the girl had miscarried, was decisive and he changed his earlier fierce denials to a guilty plea, thereby saving the victim the ordeal of giving evidence.
Nonetheless, this happened only at the last minute, and he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of seven years imprisonment on two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge, a total of 14 years. Judge Buchanan said he "took the gravest view" of the man's attempt to point the finger of suspicion at a young boy in the neighbourhood.
In March the following year, this sentence was reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal to four years. Presiding over the three-judge court, Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Hugh O'Flaherty said: "The court is convinced that it is not dealing with a man who is likely to re-offend; we cannot believe that an exemplary sentence would serve any purpose in this case." It is not clear on what this conclusion is based. The judgment states only: "There was placed before the learned trial judge, as well as before us, a probation officer's report as well as a psychiatric report in respect of the accused. Nothing emerges from these except to give a portrait of a hard-working good family man who had never been in trouble before and who had surfaced from humble origins to a position of some affluence."
In the judgment, much is made of the suffering caused by the loss of the man's business as a result of the case.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said the man's accusations against a neighbouring youth "while a bad thing to do" were irrelevant to the sentence. He also pointed out his sentence was higher than the norm for this type of offence, and that it was unprecedented for two sentences to run consecutively in such a case. The judges accepted counsel's argument that not enough weight was given to his guilty plea.
They emphasised the distinction made by counsel for the man, Mr Kevin Haugh SC, "between this case, serious though it is, and a case of out-and-out rape". They do not say what this distinction is, but presumably meant that there was no evidence of violence inflicted on the girl, who was 12 when the abuse began. At no stage in the sentencing process was there any discussion of the coercion implicit in a sexual assault on a young girl by a middle-aged man.
Most sex offenders at this time were sent to Arbour Hill. In 1994, the year this man started his sentence, a Sex Offender Treatment Programme was initiated in this prison.
A spokesman for the Irish Prison Service said the service did not discuss individual cases, and therefore could not say whether this man had participated in the sex offender programme.
However, it is very unlikely that he did, as the programme reached only a tiny minority of sex offenders. Only 10 prisoners could do it at a time, and it took 10 to 11 months to complete.
In 1997, the year the man in the X case left prison, there were 250 convicted sex offenders in custody. Only five per cent of them received treatment in the sex offender programme. On a statistical basis alone, it is unlikely he was one of them. Treatment programmes do not eliminate re-offending. But they do reduce it, depending on the age of offenders and the risk they present.