DPP -v- Martin Stafford COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALJudgment was given on February 14th, 2008, by Mr Justice Geoghegan, sitting with Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice de Valera.
JUDGMENT
A nine-year sentence, to be followed by a nine-year period of supervision by the probation service, for false imprisonment and a number of rapes over a nine- or 10-hour period was not unduly lenient when all the mitigating factors were taken into account.
BACKGROUND
The case arose from a conviction, following a guilty plea, of Martin Stafford for the rape of a woman and the theft of a car to assist in carrying out the rape. Seven other counts, including false imprisonment, were also brought forward, but nolle prosequis were entered in the light of the guilty plea. Evidence relating to these counts was given in relation to sentencing.
The crimes were committed when Stafford stole a car from St Pater's Church, Phibsboro, and approached a woman, CB, who was working as a prostitute in the Baggot Street area of Dublin. A fee was agreed for consensual sex. He drove her to Heuston station and entered a disused carriage which he was using as a home. He locked her in and raped her orally, anally and vaginally over a period of hours, threatening her with a hammer and a scissors. When he fell asleep she succeeded in alerting gardaí and escaping. According to the victim impact statement, she was severely affected by what happened.
Because of the guilty plea, the case came before the presiding sentencing judge, Mr Justice Carney, for sentence only. He referred to a number of other cases, including The People (DPP) -v- Melia, where a sentence had been increased from nine to 12 years, in considering his sentence.
He distinguished this case from Melia by the fact that there was only one victim instead of four, and imposed a nine-year sentence, to be followed by a nine-year supervision order.
In appealing against the sentence on the grounds of undue leniency, counsel for the DPP drew attention to a number of factors, including the length of time of the false imprisonment, the number of rapes, the premeditated nature of the offence, the use of a weapon and two previous convictions for similar offences.
The mitigating factors mentioned by counsel for the respondent were the plea of guilty and the fact that it had been made a week in advance of the trial, the fact that the claimant did not suffer any non-sexual injuries, the undoubted dysfunctional and tragic background of the accused and the fact that he was a chronic abuser of drugs, including at the time of the offence, that he had sought to address this and had co-operated with prosecuting gardaí.
DECISION
In upholding Mr Justice Carney's sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal noted that, while a dysfunctional background and drug abuse are not significantly mitigating factors, the nine-year supervision order reflects "concrete evidence of genuine attempts at self-rehabilitation with particular reference to drugs".
This order was clearly "thought out carefully by the learned judge and in a context that rehabilitation appears viable".
The structure of the sentence, combined with the supervision order, "would seem to this court to have been wholly appropriate and could not be considered as wrong in principle, and still less could be considered as unduly lenient".
Accordingly, the DPP's application was refused.
The full text of this judgment is available on www.courts.ie
Solicitors:to be confirmed