Paedophile wins appeal against life sentence

A CONVICTED paedophile has successfully appealed against the severity of the life sentence imposed on him for raping two young boys in Dublin between 2004 and 2006.

In a reserved judgment delivered yesterday, the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentence imposed on Philip Sullivan to a term of 15 years in prison, with the final two and a half years suspended provided he comply with certain conditions.

The court held that Mr Justice Paul Carney erred in passing a life sentence on Sullivan, and said that a determinate sentence was more appropriate, but stated in exceptional circumstances that life sentences can be imposed, and have been upheld by the appeal court, on those who plead guilty.

The life sentence was imposed by Mr Justice Carney at the Central Criminal Court in January of last year on Sullivan, 43, a native of Kildare town with an address at Botanic Road, Glasnevin, Dublin.

Sullivan admitted 11 counts including anal rape, attempted anal rape and sexual assault on two young males on dates from April 2004 to July 2006.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences on each rape charge and five years on the sexual assault counts and also directed Sullivan, who was not present in court for today’s judgment, be registered as a sex offender.

Sullivan appealed against the severity of that sentence. The DPP had opposed the appeal.

Sullivan was previously jailed for two concurrent terms of four years each at Naas Circuit Criminal Court on November 21, 1995, and for a five-year term at the Central Criminal Court on October 6, 1997. The sentences all related to offences of sexual assaults of males.

Yesterday, the three-judge appeal court, with Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan presiding along with Mr Justice Declan Budd and Ms Justice Mary Irvine, said that the offences committed by Sullivan involved “exceptional depravity” due to the frequency with which they occurred over a relatively short period.

The court said the offences were in the more serious category of offences of this nature. It took account of Sullivan’s previous offences, which indicated that he will represent a continuing danger to the public.

Mr Justice Carney was correct, the appeal court said, in regarding Sullivan as representing a continuing danger to the public, and for holding that if it were not for the previous sentences, that a ten year sentence was the appropriate sentence.

However, the trial judge was in error in principle in imposing a life sentence.

Sullivan was entitled to credit of his early plea of guilty, cooperation with the gardaí and the apparently genuine expression of remorse, the judges held.

When all the mitigating and aggravating factors were taken into account the case, the Court of Criminal Appeal said that in its opinion, the case was one where “a determinate sentence” with “a significant period of post release supervision” was appropriate.

“Where an appropriate determinate sentence can be devised that is preferable to an indeterminate sentence. That is not to say that a life sentence may not be appropriate given the exceptional circumstances of a case, and this court has upheld such sentences.”

The court imposed a 15-year sentence, with the final two and a half years suspended on condition that Sullivan attend psychological counselling and comply with the directions of the Probation Service. Sullivan would also have to undergo a period of post-release supervision of 10 years.

Paul Burns, defending, argued that, while this was a difficult case, Mr Justice Carney had erred in how he dealt with the sentence. The imposition of the life term after Sullivan’s plea of guilty was “open to challenge”.

When a plea of guilty had been entered, the maximum life sentence could only be imposed in “exceptional circumstances,” Mr Burns submitted. When formulating the sentence, the trial judge had only identified one exceptional circumstance, the fact that Sullivan had failed to reform his behaviour in light of previous convictions for similar offences.