Sentence reduced in abuse case

A man who suffered "appalling" sexual and physical abuse by his father has succeeded in having the sentence imposed on him for…

A man who suffered "appalling" sexual and physical abuse by his father has succeeded in having the sentence imposed on him for sexually abusing his brother and sister reduced from eight to three years.

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, received an eight-year prison sentence from Judge Anthony Kennedy at Roscommon Circuit Court in June 2006 for several counts of buggery and attempted buggery of his younger brother during the 1980s.

In November 2006 the man received a five-year sentence at the Central Criminal Court from Mr Justice Paul Carney after pleading guilty to 10 counts of incest and indecent assault of a younger sister, also during the 1980s.

Mr Justice Carney ruled that the five-year term was to run concurrently with the Circuit Court sentence and directed that the man undergo a period of supervision after being released.

READ MORE

The man brought an appeal against severity of sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal which yesterday upheld the appeal.

Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, presiding and sitting with Mr Justice Declan Budd and Mr Justice John Hedigan, said the court would reduce the sentence to a total of three years.

Mr Justice Geoghegan said the court was satisfied that both sentencing judges had erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the various mitigating factors in the case. This was "a very difficult case" and the man had suffered "appalling abuse" at the hands of his father.

The appeal court also had to take into account the effects of the abuse on the victims, the judge said. In all the circumstances, the appeal court believed a custodial sentence of three years for the buggery offences and three years for the incest and indecent assault charges were more appropriate sentences. It ordered that those two terms are to run concurrently and are to be followed by three years of post-release supervision.

Earlier, Hugh Hartnett SC, for the man, argued that both sentencing judges had not taken fully into consideration facts including that his client was sexually and physically abused by his father.

His client was from a dysfunctional family within which there was "great cruelty" and had started abusing his siblings when he was 11 or 12 years old.