Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland

Man who raped two young girls in Athlone moves to appeal 'excessive' life sentence

The 32-year-old man is looking to appeal his sentence, arguing that he co-operated fully with the investigation.

A MAN WHO lured two girls away from a children’s birthday party and told them he would cut their parents’ throats before repeatedly raping them has moved to appeal his life sentence.

The 32-year-old man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to raping the nine- and six-year-old girls in a flat in Athlone on 28 September 2013.

He was given two life sentences by Mr Justice Paul Carney on 3 March 2014.

The man moved to appeal his sentence today on the grounds that it was excessive in all the circumstances.

His barrister, Sean Gillane SC, acknowledged at the outset that there were certain “nightmarish aspects” about this case involving violations of an unspeakable kind of the personal and bodily integrity of two children.

Gillane said certain aspects of the man’s assistance should have merited a different approach by the trial judge.

On foot of advice he received from his solicitor, he made full admissions and indicated how the case would be approached before he left the Garda station, Gillane said.

It was indicated that there would be no requests for medical notes or disclosure and no requests even for disclosure of the tapes of interviews with the two victims “which in my experience was unique,” Gillane said.

His solicitor then indicated, in that early remand period, that there would be a willingness and desire not to receive a book of evidence and to be sent forward on a signed plea of guilty.

Mr Justice Birmingham remarked that the man’s solicitor Gearoid Geraghty did a splendid job. “The fact there’s room for debate is entirely due to the quality of the legal advice he gave”.

With great difficulty, Gillane said there was a moral dimension to attach to the approach he took. “It occurs in the darkest of cases and this was certainly a dark case.”

Gillane said his plea and acknowledgment of wrongdoing at the very least pointed towards positive rehabilitative steps being taken.


Gillane referred to two cases known as ‘D’ and ‘McC’ which got “joint treatment” by the Supreme Court in 2007.

In ‘D’ there were four daughters, 153 counts on the indictment and a 20-year period of abuse, while ‘McC’ involved six children and an 11-year period of abuse.

Gillane said the Supreme Court upheld life sentences in those cases having regard to four aspects: systemic abuse; duration; gravity of the offending and the relationship between the perpetrator and the accused.

If unmandatory life sentences became the norm, Gillane said an offender might feel the value of their plea would vanish when it comes to sentencing.

Were the Court of Appeal to uphold this man’s life sentence, it would be a new development in that landscape, he said.

The argument against an appeal

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Patrick McGrath SC, said the man was submitting that because it was a single set of transactions, it somehow put the offence in a different category.

There were no authorities to support the proposition that there had to be a series or a long running campaign of abuse for a court to conclude that a life sentence was justified, McGrath said.

It was difficult to conceive of a more horrific set of circumstances, McGrath said. The girls were “lured” from a place of safety and the acts themselves were horrific.

The fact that there was no relationship between him and the victims should not in any way enure to his benefit, McGrath said.

The fact a stranger was capable of emerging out of nowhere to commit this offence was as bad if not worse than abuse being carried out within a family, McGrath said.

He said the net point was whether an offence or collection of offences carried out in one afternoon was capable of justifying a life sentence. “The answer must be yes”.

He asked whether the facts of this case were of a kind that would allow a trial judge to reach that conclusion, and he immediately said “yes”.

If that is the case, he asked, “then where is the error in principle?”

The only mitigating factor was the early plea, he said.

Mr Justice George Birmingham, who sat with Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan and Mr Justice Alan Mahon, said the court would reserve judgment.

Mr Justice Birmingham said the court appreciated that this was a very distressing matter, particularly for the families of the victims who would like to see a conclusion.

However, the issues involved required the court to take time to deliberate.

Ruaidhrí Giblin
Your Voice
Readers Comments
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.