Judge had good reason to impose this 'harsh' sentence
Related Articles
Friday December 18 2009
NORMALLY, when a sexual assault case leads to the type of public outcry generated by the Danny Foley case, the target of people’s ire is the judge for imposing what is perceived to be a lenient or unjust sentence.
But there can be little criticism of the sentence he has received.
Indeed, Foley’s prison term conforms with a recent trend of increasing severity for rape and sexual assault reflecting, finally, society’s abhorrence for these heinous crimes.
Justifying his decision to provide a glowing reference for Foley – who was handed down a seven-year jail term for sexually assaulting a woman in Listowel – Fr Sean Sheehy described the sentence as “extremely harsh”.
Leaving the bizarre community response in north Kerry and the courage and dignity of Foley’s victim aside, can it be said that the five-year prison term – two years were suspended – was unduly harsh?
Discretion
Sentencing patterns are difficult to establish and assess in rape and sexual assault cases in Ireland. Judges have a wide degree of discretion.
Judge Donagh McDonagh described Foley’s lies as revolting and the language used to describe his victim as odious.
Foley was convicted of sexual assault, which attracts a maximum 10-year sentence if the victim is an adult and 14 years if the victim is under 17.
As Circuit Court Criminal sentences for sexual assault go, Foley’s sentence was at the upper end of the scale, but for very good reason.
He told a series of revolting lies. He refused to retract his claims until he was made aware of CCTV footage which showed him carrying his victim to a skip.
An employer described him as honest and trustworthy; Fr Sheehy said he didn’t have an abusive bone in his body.
His lawyers argued that the assault had been at the less grave end of the scale, but Judge McDonagh disagreed.
- Dearbhail McDonald, Legal editor
