DPP v Kennedy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham J. |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IECA 21 |
| Docket Number | 177/13 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 16 December 2014 |
[2014] IECA 21
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal law – Appeal against severity of sentence – Ten years imprisonment – Twenty-seven counts of indecent assault – Indictment – Eighteen complainants – Over period of eighteen years – Sentencing – Victim impact reports – Aggravating and mitigating factors – Totality – Proportionality – Significant period of non-offending – Whether no longer a threat to society – Appellant"s age considered – Whether error of principle
Facts The appellant sought to appeal against severity of sentence. The sentence imposed was one of ten years imprisonment in relation to twenty-seven counts of indecent assault. The counts on indictment and to which the appellant entered pleas related to eighteen complainants and spanned a period of eighteen years. With one exception all the complainants were school boys and some were related to the appellant. In other cases, his contact with them was via his role as a priest in the local parish. The court was provided with a number of victim impact statements. The offences had a profound impact on the victims. The offences occurred in circumstances whereby the appellant was invited into the family home of a complainant or where the appellant would drive a complainant around in his car, giving him sweets, money, alcohol or cigarettes either before or after the offence occurred. On a number of occasions he threatened the complainants with the Wrath of God in an attempt to deter them from telling their parents. The appellant was seventy-four years old when he was sentenced. The trial judge took the appellant"s age into account. He left the ministry in 1986 and in 2002 was laicised. He spent time in England as a taxi driver and later moved to Brazil where he taught English to adults. The appellant argued the sentence could not stand and ought to be interfered with. He relied on three main grounds. The approach of the trial judge was criticised as the sentence imposed was imposed in respect of one count with all others taken into consideration. It was said this made it difficult to ascertain what mitigating factors had been taken into account. The appellant also relied on his age and the fact there was a significant period of non-offending.
Held The judge said while a differently structured sentence was certainly possible, there was nothing inherently wrong with the approach that was taken by the trial judge. The judge took the appellant"s age into account. The trial judge acknowledged that the appellant had not committed any further offences since 1986. The court was of the view that there had been significant rehabilitation and that the period of non-offending meant he had reformed himself to some extent and no longer posed much of a threat to society. The judge also took into consideration the appellant"s early plea in regards eight of the complainants. Nevertheless, Mr. Kennedy behaved in a fiendish fashion; he left a path of destruction behind him. His crimes had long-term effects on his victims. The judge concluded that the sentence imposed was one that was within the range, and well within the range, of the sentencing options that were available to the court.
-No error of principle. Appeal dismissed.
NO CITATIONS IN THIS JUDGMENT
1. In this case the appellant appeals against the severity of a sentence that was imposed upon him in the Circuit Court on the 8 th July, 2013. The sentence that is the subject of the appeal is one of ten years imprisonment, which was backdated to the 26 th December, 2011.
2. The appellant was before the court for sentencing in respect of 27 counts of indecent assault. The sentence was imposed on one count with all the other counts taken into consideration. The counts that were on the indictment and to which the appellant entered pleas related to eighteen complainants and covered a period of offending that stretched between 1968 and 1986.
3. With one exception, all of the complainants were school boys and some of the complainants were related to him. In other cases, his contact with them was through contact with their family in his role as a priest serving in various, and ministering in various parishes around the country.
4. The court had before it a number of victim impact reports and eight reports were read to the court and one further report was handed in. These reports showed that there had been a profound impact on victims and that some of those who were abused in their teenage years were continuing to experience the effect of that abuse now many years later at a time when they were in middle age and upper middle age. In some cases the effects manifested themselves in difficulties in parenting, difficulties in bonding with their own children, in other cases in difficulties in forming relationships and so on.
5. A brief summary of the facts are as follows. Between the years 1968 and 1986, the Appellant committed a number of offences of indecent assault on a total of eighteen complainants. The circumstances of the offences for each complainant were largely similar and involved a situation where the Appellant was alone with a given complainant and would carry out one, or more, of the following acts: rub the complainants' leg and groin area, touch the complainants' genital area, place the complainants' hands on the Appellant's genitals, force the complainants to masturbate him, attempt to force the complainants to perform oral sex or, on one occasion, attempt to put his penis into the complainant's anus. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial