Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Irish Court of Criminal Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P. (People) v. Mahon [2008] IECCA 102 (25 July 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_102.html
Cite as: [2008] IECCA 102
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 102
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Application for leave to appeal against sentence
Fennelly J.
Budd J.
O'Higgins J.
140/07
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
V
Payne Mahon
Applicant
Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 25th day of July 2008 by Fennelly J.
This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Carney in the Central Criminal Court in May of last year. The applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts of sexual offences against one young male person who at the relevant time was between 8 and 10 years of age. Mr. Justice Carney imposed sentences of 10 years imprisonment on each of the 14 counts to run concurrently and imposed requirement of 5 years post-release supervision.
The circumstances of the offence can be very briefly described in that the applicant moved into live with the mother of the victim and the child. The victim became attached to him and he had a quasi father relationship with the child. Difficulties in the relationship with the mother grew up and this led to the applicant leaving and moving to England. The attachment of the child to the applicant was such that his mother believed he should go and stay with him in England. He was working in a pub in the Birmingham area and it was at that time that the first of the offences of sexual assault took place. Subsequently the applicant returned to Ireland and a number of offences took place at the applicant's family home in Bray and this pattern went on over a period from January 2002 to November 2003 and ultimately the four most serious offences of rape which was in effect forced oral sex took place. Complaint was first made on the 14th December, 2003 after the relationship with the victim's mother finally broke up and at that stage the applicant fled to England. He had to be
-2-
extradited from England in November 2006, although a point is made in his favour that he did not resist his extradition. It should also be said although the trial judge minimalised it that he has on his record a number of medium range serious criminal offences particularly in the United Kingdom three of shop lifting, one of possession of heroin, one of possession of an offensive weapon. He has a long history of alcohol and drug abuse and the offences in the United Kingdom were committed in order to feed his addiction.
As far the offences themselves are concerned three aspects of them put them at the serious end of the scale where, the court is satisfied the learned trial judge correctly put them and that is they were on their own facts extremely serious offences against a very young child. Secondly they were part of a repeated pattern over a two year period, (they were not single isolated events) and, thirdly, because of the relationship of quasi father that the applicant had with the child, it was the most appalling example of abuse of trust and that was not indeed contended at the hearing in the Central Criminal Court by counsel on behalf of the applicant.
The mitigating circumstances that were put forward: that he did not resist his extradition; against that it can be said that that was necessary only because he had fled to England in the first place; secondly that he had not been able to make a statement of admission because he had not in the ordinary way been questioned by the Gardai by reason of the extradition. However, there was nothing to prevent him making a voluntary statement of his own. The court is satisfied, with one possible small qualification, the learned trial judge took all of these matters properly into account. The shame and remorse which he accepted was absolutely genuine; the trial judge said that. The probation report showing that he was willing to undergo the Sex Offenders Programme in Arbour Hill Prison in particular. Looking at it in the overall there is no doubt that the 10 year sentence, particularly for the rape offences was well warranted and this court could not see any basis for disturbing those sentences.
Mr. O'Brien makes the point that the judge did not differentiate between the rape and the sexual offences cases and in recognition of this fact what the court proposes to do would be in respect of those 10 counts to remove the requirement of post release
-3-
supervision, just in those 10 counts, and in those 10 counts to reduce the period of imprisonment from 10 years to 7 years. Otherwise the sentences will stand.