Courts

Nine year jail sentence for GAA coach who ‘destroyed’ boy’s life through years of rape ‘too lenient’

Coach, now 43, physically beat his victim when he tried to fend off abuse

The man was extradited from the US to face the charges.
The man was extradited from the US to face the charges.
Paul Neilan
Tue Mar 12 2024 - 18:59

A nine year jail sentence handed down to a GAA coach who “destroyed” a boy’s life through years of rape and physical abuse before trying to humiliate and control his victim by harassing him was too lenient, the State has told the Court of Appeal.

The sentencing court had heard how the now 43-year-old man physically beat his victim when he began to try to fend off the abuse.

At the Central Criminal Court in December 2021, the man was sentenced to 10-and-a-half years in prison with the final 18 months suspended by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath.

He had pleaded guilty in April 2021 to sample counts including attempted rape, seven counts of anal rape, four counts of sexual assault, two counts of assault causing harm and one of harassment at various locations in dates between 2004 and 2010.

READ SOME MORE

The offences took place at locations that included the man’s home, at a midlands sports grounds and at a hotel in Dublin.

The Central Criminal Court heard the man had been extradited from the US to face the charges.

At the Court of Appeal today senior counsel Eilis Brennan, for the State, said the victim endured a “continuum” of sexual and physical abuse as well as “emotional torture” over a six-year period. She told the court that the nine-year sentence did not reflect the “destruction” of a young man’s life.

Ms Brennan said the now 43-year-old defendant had pleaded guilty to the sample charges of offending that occurred at various locations in 2004 and 2006 when the boy was 13. At the time the abuse was being committed on a “weekly basis”.

Ms Brennan said the child had been subject to multiple rapes and sexual assaults that began when he was 13 years old and continued to when he was 15.

Counsel said the man, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of his victim, made contact with the boy when he was in fourth class and began “grooming” his victim through sporting and other pursuits.

Ms Brennan said the boy was “extremely vulnerable” at the time as his father was an alcoholic. His mother had to leave the home to hold down a job.

Counsel said the sexual abuse also occurred after physical violence had been committed on the child, who had begun to fight back the older he became.

Ms Brennan said that this was illustrated in the summer of 2005 when the boy was spat on, punched, kicked and had his lip slit by the man when the victim refused to masturbate the defendant.

“Physical abuse was part and parcel of the whole continuum and extensive grooming began three years before the sexual assaults – the victim was a vulnerable child,” said counsel.

Ms Brennan said that after the sexual assaults stopped, the injured party was then harassed by the defendant by phone in 2010 for which he was jailed for a concurrent three years.

The State submits that the harassment of the victim in 2010 occurred four years after the sexual assaults had ended and that it should have been treated as a separate issue that would attract a consecutive sentence.

Ms Brennan said the “continuous” harassment of the victim involved “dominion, control and humiliation” and that the injured party “felt he had to leave college as he was being destroyed at every point and he eventually had to drop out”.

Ms Brennan said harassment carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.

“Nine years seems extremely low for the destruction of the life of someone from their teen years,” she said.

Senior counsel Tom O’Malley, defending, said the trial judge “gave a very careful and clear judgment and went through the facts in great detail and explained why he imposed what he did”.

Mr O’Malley said the pre-mitigation headline sentence of 13 years was towards the higher end of the more serious category of offending. “I am certainly not saying it should have been lower than that but the judge located it appropriately in the category and above the midpoint in the appropriate range,” counsel said.

“That it might have been higher does not make it unduly lenient,” he added. Counsel said the judge took into account all the factors and time frames and gave a deduction of 2.5 years because of a “very significant guilty plea in mitigation”.

“That [guilty plea] had serious utility and value, principally for the victim and their family members. It had very considerable value and avoided a trial,” said counsel, who said the reduction for the guilty plea “was not exactly generous”.

Regarding the suspension of the final 18 months, Mr O’Malley said that it was necessary for his client to have a period under supervision as he reintegrates into society, as the only family member he is still in contact with is his older sister, who lives in the United States.

Mr Justice George Birmingham said the court would reserve its judgment in the matter.