A Westmeath man jailed for the rape of a 14-year-old girl, whom he "characterised as a liar", has had his prison sentence cut on appeal.
Martin Stokes (25), of Corkhill, Kinnegad, had pleaded not guilty to defilement of a child under the age of 15 at a location in Westmeath on June 3rd, 2011. He also denied raping and sexually assaulting her on the same occasion.
Stokes initially denied knowing the girl but when the case came to trial for a second time he claimed their interaction was consensual.
A Central Criminal Court jury found him guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with the final two suspended by Mr Justice Carroll Moran on August 7th, 2015.
Stokes had an appeal against conviction dismissed in December. However, he was resentenced on Friday to 10 years imprisonment with the final three suspended by the Court of Appeal.
Lies
Giving judgment in the three-judge court, Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan said it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that the sentencing judge paid undue attention to the lies told by Stokes.
The sentencing judge concluded his extensive remarks by stating: “persistent lying particularly when it is to one’s disadvantage must lead one to question the soundness of a person’s judgment”.
Mr Justice Sheehan said the excessive attention on the lies told by Stokes led to an error when he identified 12 years as the appropriate starting point. In the Court of Appeal’s view the proper starting point was 10 years.
Furthermore, it took four years for the case to come to trial. This was grossly unfair to the victim, Mr Justice Sheehan said but also unfair to Stokes.
This “significant system failure” was a factor the Court of Appeal regarded in considering what portion of the sentence to suspend.
Age
In view of the delay along with Stokes’s age at the time of the offence and the need to encourage his rehabilitation, the court suspended the final three years.
He was required into a good behaviour bond for the suspended period. When asked if he undertook to be so bound he said “yes, I do”.
Stokes’ barrister, Padraig Dwyer SC, submitted that the sentence imposed was disproportionate and excessive.
He said the sentencing judge placed undue weight on the lies told by Stokes and not enough weight on his youth at the time, that his family supported him, his limited educational background, partial employment history, the serious impact his conviction had on his extended family as a traveller, the absence of gratuitous violence and that none of his previous convictions were for sexual offences.
Mr Dwyer relied on the judgment of Mr Justice Peter Charleton known as 'Drought' in which the now Supreme Court judge carried out an extensive review of sentences imposed in rape cases.
There was no additional violence, the injured party had no bruises or scratches of any kind and no threats to kill or cause bodily injury were made during or after the event, Mr Dwyer said.
“That took it right out of the double digit category,” in terms of sentence, Mr Dwyer submitted.
Counsel said he took issue with the trial judges remarks at sentencing.
Background
Giving background, Mr Justice Sheehan said Stokes, then 20-years-old, met the 14-year-old girl while she was on her way to a friend’s house.
She told the court that she had met Stokes previously and chatted to him when he told her he was 16.
She said he asked her, and kept asking her, to go with him for a few minutes as they walked down the road.
She climbed onto a fence and jumped into a field. He followed her and told her to sit down, whereupon he started touching her breasts.
Her evidence was that she told him she didn’t want to do it, but that he continued to touch, that he digitally penetrated and had sexual intercourse with her.
She said she kept asking him to get off her by saying that she didn’t want to do it and also telling him that she was only 14-years-old.
Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Pauline Walley SC, said no stone was left unturned to defend Stokes. The victim was put through an "ordeal" and her family were obliged to move home, she said.
The first trial was in her junior cert year. She then had to defer her leaving cert for a year.
Ms Walley said Stokes had characterised her as a liar, as an "encourager" and as someone who was sexually active.
It was also the case that Stokes went to her front door the day after the incident.
The evidence against Stokes was “coercive”, Ms Walley said, but he decided to take a particular course.