O’Donoghue sentence - Reining in victim impact statements

FAR-REACHING repercussions for people who make victim impact statements will follow a ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, stemming from its refusal of an application against the leniency of the prison sentence given to Wayne O’Donoghue for the manslaughter of 11-year-old Robert Holohan.

From the moment of Robert’s disappearance to the discovery of his body in a ditch 10 miles from his home near Midleton in east Cork, the local community and the nation were convulsed by this harrowing case.

The decision not to increase the student’s four-year sentence for killing his schoolboy neighbour in January 2005, means the court was fully satisfied the sentence handed down by Mr Justice Paul Carney was appropriate and soundly based on the evidence before him.

O’Donoghue was acquitted of Robert’s murder but pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his neighbour in January 2005. Sentenced to four years in prison last January, he is due for release in 15 months’ time.

Effectively, yesterday’s ruling means closure has now been brought to the criminal proceedings of this tragedy. For the Holohan and O’Donoghue families, however, the grieving and sorrow will never end.

This was manifestly evident after the ruling by the three judges, which left Robert’s parents, Majella and Mark, deeply distressed and disappointed. No less poignant, however, was the expression of remorse by O’Donoghue whose own life and that of his family have also been ruined.

Touching on a controversial aspect of the original trial, the appeal judges have issued a stern warning on the question of victim impact statements which allow a victim or a close relative to stand up in court and outline the effects of a crime.

Up to recently, the relatives and friends of victims were largely ignored by the criminal justice system. However, as seen in the trial for the killing of Brian Murphy outside Anabel’s nightclub in Dublin, the heart-rending statement read to the court by his mother, Mary, had a seismic effect on public opinion.

As things stand, the law allows for such statements by the living victim of a variety of crimes. As yet no such provision exists in legislation for either the family or friends of a victim.

Thankfully, however, a practice has developed whereby judges exercise discretion to permit impact statements by friends or family.

Central to this issue is the vexed question of whether a person is entitled to depart from the prepared script submitted to the presiding judge and counsel.

Debate on this subject raged following the victim impact statement made by Robert’s mother who alleged that traces of Wayne O’Donoghue’s semen were found on her son.

Rejecting those allegations, lawyers for O’Donoghue stressed they were completely and totally false. DNA testing had shown the semen was not O’Donoghue’s, they said.

Removing any shadow of doubt, the appeal judges have now warned that if people depart from an agreed victim impact statement, they may be found in contempt of court. Moreover, if such a departure contains unfounded or scurrilous allegations, this could be taken into account by the judge in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.

Furthermore, they stress that while great sympathy exists for people making victim impact statements, every effort must be made to ensure they are not used to undermine the proper role of the prosecution in a trial, nor to seek to place in the public domain unfounded or unproven allegations against a convicted person awaiting sentence.

This clear and unambiguous ruling will have a profound bearing on the way victim impact statements are delivered in future and will be welcomed by the public at large.