THE Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday rejected a claim by the Director of Public Prosecutions that a judge imposed an "unduly lenient" sentence on a post office worker convicted of attempted rape and assault of a 22 year old woman.
The postman was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury in May 1994 of attempted rape, sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offences were committed on December 23rd, 1992.
Mr Justice Carney on June 14th, 1996, imposed a six month prison sentence which was suspended "unconditionally".
The trial judge had said that following the man's conviction he had adjourned the case to see if An Post would "impose a second tier of punishment" by sacking the defendant. He had recalled receiving a "most extraordinary range of testimonials" on the accused man's behalf. In particular, the court had received a letter from the defendant's co-workers expressing the fear that he would be sacked and lose all his pension benefits accrued over 25 years of exemplary service.
The trial judge said a letter from An Post stated it was now planned only to admonish the defendant for giving An Post a "bad name".
During the Court of Criminal Appeal hearing, Ms Maureen Clarke SC, for the DPP, claimed the sentence was unduly lenient having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the charges.
Ms Clarke said the Director believed the sentence did not reflect the grave nature of the charges. The accused, by pleading not guilty and putting the victim on proof, was not entitled to credit as would be the case had a plea of guilty been entered.
Mr Barry White SC, for the man, said they were talking about events which had occurred more than four years ago. The court had to have regard to the fact that the DPP between December 1992 (when the offences were committed) and December 1993 took no steps against the man.
This was followed by a trial in May 1994. The matter was put back for sentencing to June 1994. There were two adjournments to June 1995 and again to June 1996.
Mr Justice Lynch giving the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision said that under the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, the court might either quash the sentence and replace it with a sentence it considered appropriate or it could refuse the DPP's application.
The court was satisfied that it was highly improbable the man would re-offend. Mr Justice Lynch said they had decided it would be oppressive to interfere with the Central Criminal Court sentenced at this late stage. They refused the DPP's application.