A two-year jail term imposed on a priest who sexually abused altar boys has been increased to six years by the Court of Criminal Appeal after the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted the original term was unduly lenient.
Ivan Payne, with an address care of the Dublin Archdiocese, had pleaded guilty to several counts of indecent assault when the case was before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in June 1998.
He had been given a six-year sentence by former judge Cyril Kelly, but the final four years was suspended on condition that he entered the Granada Institute in England or some similar centre for treatment.
The priest was given eight terms of six years, two of five years and three of four years on 13 charges of indecent assault on nine boys between 1968 and 1987. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
He had pleaded guilty to 13 sample charges.
Yesterday, the Court of Criminal Appeal decided that the suspended part of the sentence should be served.
Giving that court's judgment, Mr Justice Barron said the offences were committed on church premises by a priest against young boys brought on to the premises in pursuance of their duties as altar boys.
The offences to which Payne had pleaded guilty took place over a period of some 20 years. Some were isolated incidents as far as the victim was concerned. Others involved the same boy over a period of time, the longest time involved being three years.
Payne's behaviour towards this particular boy came to light when the boy ultimately complained.
Mr Justice Barron - who heard the case with Mr Justice Barr and Mr Justice O'Sullivan - said the case was a very high-profile one. It was clear that in suspending the greater portion of the sentences, the trial judge was influenced by two factors - the disgrace suffered by the priest and the absence of adequate custodial rehabilitative facilities.
Many crimes might well have a tariff where there were no particular exceptional circumstances. Indecent assault was less likely to be such since the seriousness of the crime could be aggravated by factors such as the ages of the participants and their relationship to each other. In other words, the seriousness of the crime was dependent on many factors.
Mr Justice Barron said that in this type of case the predominant factor had to be the nature of the acts constituting the crime. Factors which aggravated the present case were the difference in ages, the nature of the trust which was broken and the continuance of the criminal behaviour after efforts had been made to make the accused understand his problem.
In his favour was his plea of guilty at an early stage and the very wide publicity given to the case.
In relation to the appeal, the appeal court was obliged to take into account also the effect that the crimes had on its victims, which had been considerable.
Taking all those matters into account, the court accepted the view of the DPP that the trial judge was unduly lenient in his sentence.
The term of six years' imprisonment was not unreasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances and was in the view of the court an appropriate sentence.
However, the court did not accept it was proper to suspend the balance of the sentence after Payne had actually served two years, whether or not coupled with the condition imposed.