British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >> O'Regan, D.P.P. (People) v. [2008] IECCA 120 (20 October 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_120.html
Cite as: [2008] IECCA 120
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Kearns J.
Budd J.
Clark J.
[102CJA/08]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1993
BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPLICANT
AND
MATTHEW O'REGAN
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered the 20th day of October, 2008 by Kearns J.
On 10th December, 2007 the respondent pleaded guilty to eighteen counts of indecent assault and three counts of rape all involving young
-2-
children who were within the family circle, being nieces of his. He was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court to ten years imprisonment, the last five years of which were suspended.
It must be said at the outset that these were crimes of the utmost seriousness involving a gigantic breach of trust and involving in the main very young girls who were aged between nine and twelve years of age when this process was underway and it continued over a period of nine years from 1969 to early 1978.
The Director took the view that he would bring an application to review the sentence under s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 on various grounds which are set out in the Notice of Application to the Court. They include the gravity of the offences, including the rape of three different girls. There were also male victims in the predatory activities of the respondent.
As it transpired knowledge of the abuse eventually emerged within the family of the respondent and a measure of retribution was exacted against him in an unofficial way where he was assaulted by a brother in law and had his teeth knocked out and was rendered unconscious.
It is rather shocking to discover that in so far as some of these children are concerned, one was only eight and a half years of age at the time of the first indecent assault. A boy, who was a cousin, became a victim when he was twelve or thirteen years of age and he was subjected
-3-
to indecent assaults on nine occasions over a three year period. Another niece was first assaulted when she was only six or seven years of age and was raped when she was ten years of age. Another niece was raped when she was seven years of age. Another niece was indecently assaulted a number of times when only ten years old. Finally, another niece was raped when she was thirteen or fourteen and the respondent was then twenty-five years of age.
The way the sentencing judge dealt with this matter was to impose eighteen months concurrent sentences on all of the indecent assaults and to impose sentences of ten years in respect of the three rape counts, five of which were suspended. All the usual points were made before the trial judge, including the fact that a plea of guilty was tendered, but the Court notes that this plea was entered very late in the day, indeed after the jury had been empanelled.
The victim impact statements in this case show that all of the victims of this predatory disgraceful course of behaviour were very traumatised and have life long effects as a result of this behaviour.
Looking to the respondent's own circumstances, he was born on the 9th May, 1953, so he is now a man well into his middle years and approaching one might say the autumn years of his life. He is a married man, he has one adult son. It has been pointed out that he himself was abused while at school by a teacher and once this course of offending
-4-
ended there was no episode or no occasion when he ever repeated this sort of behaviour and he has been in steady employment until December, 2007 having worked for sixteen years in the same job. He only lost his employment when this matter came to court. He has no previous convictions and that of course is something the Court must bear in mind.
It is a highly unusual case and the Court is not going to interfere with the sentence which was imposed by the sentencing court because the Court is not satisfied that it could safely conclude, although it might have imposed a more severe sentence, that there was a substantial departure by the sentencing judge from what he was entitled to regard as appropriate for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the Court does take the view that the learned trial judge was correct in taking the view that the antiquity of these offences was something to be factored into account given that the range of penalties which the offences might have attracted had they been dealt with back in the late 1970's or early 1980's might have been significantly, or at least to some extent, less. Mr. Hartnett, senior counsel for the respondent, has directed the Court to the views of the former Chief Justice in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. JT (Unreported, CCA on 6th November, 1996) which provides ample authority for this general proposition.
-5-
Secondly, the psychiatric report in this case does indicate the intellectual shortcomings of this respondent. It points out that only pre-pubescent young people were at risk from him and while it was a risk that has not entirely disappeared the Court is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the respondent and his age that risk is virtually nil and that persons in that age bracket are unlikely to have any contact whatsoever with the respondent.
Having regard to the high onus on the Director to establish a substantial departure from what is appropriate, the Court is satisfied that the sentencing judge, in structuring the sentence as he did with a suspension of five years, built in adequate safeguards to guard against any further re-offending by this fifty-five year old man and in the circumstances the Court will refuse the application.