Wexford men fail to get rape sentences quashed

Two Wexford men who forced their way in to a woman's house and raped her while her young child was in an adjacent room have failed in their attempts to have their convictions and 14-year sentences quashed on appeal.

John Connors (aged 28) and Patrick Moorehouse (aged 25) were each jailed for 14 years by Mr Justice George Birmingham in February 2009 after a Central Criminal Court jury unanimously found them guilty of raping the woman at her home on August 31, 2006.

Connors was acquitted by the jury on an additional charge of rape and a charge of anal rape.

The court was told that Connors and Moorehouse forced their way into the victim’s home, hit her in the face and took her to a bedroom where they raped her in turn whilst holding a rope around her neck.

Evidence was heard that the men made threats against the woman and that her daughter was in an adjacent room during the ordeal.

The men, both with addresses at Esmonde Road, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford denied the charges and claimed that the sexual activity was consensual.

Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, for Connors, submitted that the verdict of the jury was “perverse” as it was “inconceivable” that a jury could have acquitted his client on two counts of rape and convicted on one.

He said that this was compounded by a failure to particularise the indictment, which left the defence unable to determine on what basis a conviction had been obtained.

Mr Hartnett said the trial judge erred in principle by identifying a sentence of 17 years as a “starting point” and then reducing this down to a sentence of 14 years, having regard to the mitigating factors in the case.

He said that Mr Justice Birmingham failed to have sufficient regard to the fact that Connors was 23 years old at the time of committing the offence, had no relevant previous convictions and is married with two young children.

Mr Hartnett said the trial judge should have had greater regard to the fact that Connors came from the Travelling community and that the effects of imprisonment were therefore greater due to the isolation and cultural separation he faced.

Counsel for Moorehouse, Mr Timothy O’Leary SC, said that if the jury was not satisfied with the evidence of the complainant on the charges of rape and anal rape faced by Connors, then the verdict against Moorehouse was irrational and unsafe.

Mr O’Leary submitted that his client had been afforded too little mitigation and Mr Justice Birmingham failed to have sufficient regard to the fact that Moorehouse had no previous convictions.

Mr Tom Creed SC, for the State, said that the two counts of rape and one count of anal rape faced by Connors and the one count of rape faced by Moorehouse were quite specific and that the sequence in which they took place was related to the jury.

He said that Mr Justice Birmingham had conducted the sentence hearing in an impeccable manner and that there had been no error in principle.

Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal, said that the State had made it clear to the jury the sequence in which the charges against Connors occurred.

As this had been made clear from the opening of the prosecution case, which had not varied over the course of the trial, Mr Justice Finnegan said the jury could have been under no illusion as to what they were finding Connors guilty of.

Mr Justice Finnegan, sitting with Mr Justice Michael Moriarty and Mr Justice Daniel Herbert, said the court would therefore refuse leave to appeal on these grounds.

He said that, as Moorehouse had argued that the “perversity” which brought about the jury decision in the Connors case transferred and “infected” his own, leave to appeal on his behalf would also be refused.

However, Mr Justice Finnegan said that, even if the appeal court determined that the findings of the jury in the Connors case had been perverse, it was not satisfied that it would or could follow that the verdict in Moorhouse’s case had been adversely affected.

Mr Justice Finnegan said that, taking all the circumstances of the case in to account, the court was satisfied a tariff of 14 years was within the range of the permissible sentences for an offence of rape.