Defence Forces member sent to prison for rape of fellow soldier

Kielan Mooney 'simply took what he wanted from the encounter and had no respect for her wishes,' the judge said

Kielan Mooney got eight-and-a-half years for one count of anal rape, oral rape and rape of the woman at the Dublin hotel. File photo: Collins Courts

A member of the Irish Defence Forces who “spurned the consensual offer that was made to him in a selfish, arrogant and forceful way” has been jailed for eight-and-a-half years for the rape of a fellow soldier at a Dublin hotel three years ago.

Kielan Mooney (aged 30) of Bloomfield Park, Derry, was convicted following a trial at the Central Criminal Court last December on a count of anal rape, oral rape and rape of the woman at the Dublin hotel on July 26, 2021.

He had pleaded not guilty to a total of six charges — two charges of rape, two charges of oral rape, a charge of anal rape and a charge of sexual assault. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the three remaining charges.

The now 24-year-old woman, who is also a serving soldier of the Irish Defence Forces, has indicated that while she is content for Mooney to be named in the reporting of the case, she does not wish to be identified.

Sentencing Mooney on Monday, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said Mooney “spurned the consensual offer that was made to him in a selfish, arrogant and forceful way and had no respect for the limits she [the woman] wanted to place on sexual activity”.

“He simply took what he wanted from the encounter and had no respect for her wishes,” the judge said. The judge said the woman had “always been very frank” that the background to the rape was clearly consensual.

“It was her prerogative and privilege to make a decision as to who and when she would have sexual activity and who, when and the level of that activity,” Justice Hunt continued.

'Gross overstatement'

At a previous sentence hearing last December, a number of affidavits were presented to the court which described Mooney, a father of five, as “very family-orientated”, “ a dedicated father”, “someone who works exceptionally hard to make sure his children know they are loved” and also as a man who “idolises his children”.

On Monday, Gráinne O’Neill BL, prosecuting, told Justice Hunt that following newspapers reports of that hearing, two women contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions to rebut that evidence.

The women, who each have two children with Mooney, said that Mooney has not seen his children, that he does not pay maintenance and that it is “always hard work” with him as he never really wants to see them.

One of the women said Mooney always put his social life and lifestyle ahead of her children with him. She said “he is not a good person, not a good role model” and she would never let Mooney near her children.

Mr Justice Hunt said it was clear from the statements from these two women that Mooney has had “no meaningful or positive contact with these children over a long period of time”.

He described those earlier testimonials in relation to Mooney being a good father as “a false prospectus” and a “gross overstatement” that his children will miss him if remanded in custody.

Mr Justice Hunt also noted that Mooney applied for bail on conviction by the jury, and while bail was refused and Mooney was remanded in custody pending sentence, one of the reasons he was looking for bail was to give him the opportunity to say goodbye to his children.

“I believe I have been significantly misled as to the material that was put forward and also the basis of a bail application pending conviction at trial. I don’t take it lightly, someone trying to pull the wool over my eyes,” Mr Justice Hunt said.

Sentencing

In sentencing Mooney, Mr Justice Hunt said there was “no recognition of the verdict of the jury” and Mooney does not appear to show any remorse for the significant harm he caused.

He referred to suggestions during the trial that the woman had made the allegations on the basis of “some disappointment on her behalf with how things went”.

“I don’t buy that for one moment and the jury clearly don’t either. She is clearly a robust person who would take such disappointments in a normal way without making false allegations,” the judge continued.

He said it was “very clear” that something had happened that was “radically wrong” and “radically different” from what the woman had consented to.

Justice Hunt set a headline sentence of nine-and-a-half years which he applied as “a global sentence” for the offences Mooney had been convicted of by the jury.

He acknowledged that Mooney had made a positive contribution in terms of joining the army and was prepared to serve in that way and in a disciplined way of life that military service requires.

“But I have to bear in mind that his behaviour (during the rape) was ill-disciplined.” Mr Justice Hunt said it was “apparent” from the woman’s demeanour both during the trial and in giving her victim impact statement that the rapes had impacted her life and career.

Mr Justice Hunt said:

I wish her well and hope she is able to put this behind her and get on with her life in a positive way. I have no doubt that she is strong enough to do that.

Mr Justice Hunt said he had intended to reduce the headline sentence by two years but he would not do that now given the evidence he received on Monday in relation to Mooney’s “mitigating factor that was falsely put forward”.

“No court should be put in a position of being faced with a false prospectus,” the judge said before he added that this was a “warning to anyone who is considering overselling themselves in terms of mitigation”.

He imposed a jail term of eight-and-a-half years. He also imposed a two-year post-release supervision order and said that Mooney must engage with the Probation Service for two years upon his ultimate release from prison. The jail term was backdated to when Mooney first went into custody last December.