A SLIGO MAN has been jailed for over six years for raping his sister and sexually assaulting his niece, in what a judge described as a “particularly sad case”.

The 33-year-old man, who can’t be named to protect the anonymity of his victims, pleaded guilty to one count of rape on an unknown date between 10 and 12 June 2020.

He also pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on 12 June 2020. The victims were the man’s sister and her daughter, who was 14 years old at the time.

The man has previous convictions including for possession of child pornography. He is currently serving a sentence of seven years with the final two suspended for false imprisonment.

Imposing sentence today, Justice Tony Hunt described this as a “particularly sad case” involving an “inter-family situation”.

He noted that the first victim had shown “great kindness over the years” to her brother.

The court recognised they both had their “individual difficulties at the time in their lives” however, the man’s actions were an “abuse of the hospitality, trust and care previously shown towards him”.

Mr Justice Hunt said the rape count was aggravated by factors outside those inherent in the crime. He noted the incident also involved an attempted anal rape.

The judge said he considered the evidence to be “very strong” in relation to this count.

He noted that the man sexually assaulted his niece around the same time when the girl was then 14 years old. The judge noted the age disparity between the man and his niece.

He said the “forensic examination was consistent with the scenario described by the prosecution,” and said this incident would have been a “very distressing experience” for the victims.

The judge said the victim impact statements set out in “technicolour” the background of the case and its effects on the victims.

Referring to the man’s initial approach after his arrest, Mr Justice Hunt said the court felt “any want of candour or frankness in this approach was made up by an early plea”.

Mr Justice Hunt noted that it is his practice in cases where there is more than one victim to impose separate but consecutive sentences that “mark the wrong” done to each victim.

He said however, in this case any sentence he imposed will be consecutive to the sentence the man is currently serving for the false imprisonment charge.

He said the probation report suggested a “very worrying disposition in terms of committing violent acts towards females”.

He also described the man’s previous conviction for possession for child pornography as a “malign” indication. The judge said there are “very serious issues” that the man needs to address as part of his rehabilitation.

He noted the mitigating features including the early guilty plea and a letter expressing the man’s remorse.

The judge said he would give particular weight to the guilty plea as it spared the victims from having to face a trial.

“In cases of sexual misconduct, particularly one like this with a depressing and difficult background, it may come as a considerable relief to the victims not to have to undergo the trial process and not to have to tell their story to a jury of strangers,” said the judge.

He also noted that the man does not have a “particular good previous character”.

Mr Justice Hunt set a headline sentence of 13 years in respect of the rape charge before imposing a sentence of nine and a half years.

He said he would further reduce the sentence by one year to avoid the man’s total time in prison being of “crushing length”.

He imposed a sentence of eight and a half years with the final two years suspended on strict conditions in respect of the rape count and a concurrent five years for the sexual assault count. 

He directed the sentence to run consecutive to the one the man is currently serving.

Mr Justice Hunt directed the man to place himself under the supervision of the Probation Service for five years post-release and to have no contact with the victims or their families in perpetuity. 

He expressed the hope that the victims got some “vindication and satisfaction” from the process and wished them well for the future.

Mr Justice Hunt told the man that “in case you doubt the wisdom” of the decision to plead guilty, it was his view that the man would have been convicted at trial due to the forensic evidence and testimony.

He said if the man had been convicted at trial, “none of the discount a guilty plea unlocked would have been available to you,” and he would have imposed a sentence of 13 years.