A LAW LECTURER has said that while long consecutive sentences can be “perfectly appropriate”, they will nevertheless “remain quite unusual” in Ireland.

Speaking to The Journal, law lecturer at University of Galway Conor Hanly noted that Irish courts have “traditionally favoured concurrent sentencing over consecutive sentencing”.

He was speaking to The Journal in the aftermath of the 30-year sentence given to former taxi driver Raymond Shorten.

The sentencing courts have broken for the summer and the sentence handed down to Shorten was one of a number of big verdicts reached in recent weeks.

On 22 July, Shorten (50) was sentenced to 13 years in jail for the rape of a seven-year-old girl in 2012.

Shorten, of Melrose Crescent, Clondalkin, Dublin 22, was separately convicted in June of the rape of a 19-year-old woman on 26 June 2022 and the rape of another woman, then aged 20, a couple of months later on 9 August – he received a 17-year sentence for these offences.

These sentences will run consecutively, meaning Shorten faces a combined 30-years in jail.

While Hanly remarked that such a sentence is “unusual”, he added that it is a “perfectly appropriate” sentence for his crimes.

However, he noted that the Irish courts have “pointed out that sentencing practice here does not involve what they call ‘American style’ sentences, running into hundreds of years”.

He added the courts in Ireland “emphasize the principle of proportionality and the need to preserve light at the end of the tunnel to encourage rehabilitation”.

Hanly said that it would have been “quite unusual for consecutive sentences to be imposed in the context of a serial sexual offender” 20 years ago, but that there seems to be a “shift in practice”.

He said the sentencing court has discretion to impose concurrent sentences, consecutive sentences, or any mix between them.

“It’s overriding duty is to construct a proportionate sentence, and that’s a sentence that’s proportionate to the offence committed and the harm done, the severity of the crime, but also reflecting any mitigating factors.”

However, he remarked that this can “dictate a lengthy sentence, if that’s what is proportionate”.

Hanly remarked that the “old rule” was that sentences should be concurrent “if the offenses form part of the same transaction”.

“If you think of a bank robbery, you’re actually committing a whole range of offences,” said Hanly.

“You’ve got possession of a weapon, threats to kill or cause serious harm, robbery and so on, but they’re all part of the same transaction.

“If we were to charge all those individual offences, it makes sense that you serve one effective sentence, that’s the single transaction rule.

“But for some reason, where there were a range of sexual offenses committed against sometimes the same victims or against the range of victims, there seemed to be a practice that consecutive sentencing would be quite unusual.”

However, Hanly said there seems to be a shift, “particularly where there are offences committed against different victims, as is the case with Raymond Shorten”.

While he said the consecutive sentence handed to Shorten is “more reflective of practice now than used to be the case”, he added that it is “still relatively unusual to come up with a 30-year sentence”.

“If you think back to some of the clerical abuse cases and cases involving swimming coaches and sports coaches, which have involved multiple charges, none of them added up to 30 years.

“In that respect, it is unusual but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong and in my view, this sentence is perfectly appropriate.”

Court of Appeal

Hanly told The Journal that Shorten is likely going to appeal against the severity of the sentence.

“A 30-year sentence is unusual, but the use of consecutive sentencing is becoming less unusual, as far as I can tell.

“Speaking personally, I think a 30-year sentence was perfectly appropriate for this, but how the Court of Appeal will respond, I don’t know.”

Hanly noted that while Shorten “will probably try to attack the individual sentences”, it is the overall length of the sentence that will be the “main focus” of any appeal.

“I can’t even hazard a guess as to what the Court of Appeal would do with that,” said Hanly.

“Shorten would be right to say that a total sentence of 30 years is unusual.

“But it will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal does with the totality of the punishment.

‘Consecutive sentencing becoming less unusual’

Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (DRCC) welcomed the consecutive sentence handed to Shorten and remarked that it is “effectively equivalent to a life sentence”.

DRCC said the sentence should “send a message of zero tolerance to perpetrators” and that it hopes “the trend of substantial sentences being handed down for sexual crimes continues”.

Hanly is also on the board of Cuan, Ireland’s new Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Agency. 

He said that the DRCC “is probably correct that this may well indicate a shift in attitude” when it comes to handing down consecutive sentencing.

Hanly added that the use of consecutive sentencing is “becoming less unusual”.

“Previously, the courts have been aware that disproportionate total sentences can creep in very quickly when you’re dealing with consecutive sentences, because they’re all added one after the other.”

However, Hanly added that it will remain the case that it will be “very unusual to come up with 30-year sentences”.

“I think such sentences will probably remain quite unusual, certainly for the foreseeable future,” said Hanly.

“But on the use of consecutive sentencing, I think the courts are becoming a little happier to use them, and that will inevitably increase the overall length of sentences.

“That also has its own implications in terms of housing prisoners and prison needs, but that’s a separate issue.”