The Director of Public Prosecutions wants the Supreme Court to increase an eight and a half year sentence imposed on a man who raped his wife.

The Central Criminal Court had imposed an effective 10 year sentence for the May 2014 rape and the DPP appealed to the Supreme Court when that was reduced to eight and a half years by the Court of Appeal.

The DPP argued the appeal court erred in apparently regarding the rape as an offence “in isolation” rather than part of a pattern of violent and abusive behaviour.

The appeal concerns the rape sentence only and not concurrent sentences imposed for threats by the man to kill the woman and a hammer attack by him on her some days after the rape.

The Supreme Court heard submissions on sentence on Wednesday following its significant earlier judgment in the case which addressed sentencing in rape cases, particularly of marital rape involving a pattern of violent and abusive behaviour. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Frank Clarke, presiding over the five judge court, said it will rule on sentence on a later date.

In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton in December, the Supreme Court set out principles for sentencing in rape cases and the sentencing bands for such cases. It said rape ordinarily merits a substantial “headline” sentence of about seven years before mitigation is considered and a custodial sentence “is all but inescapable”.

A category of cases merit a headline sentence of 10 to 15 years, before considering mitigation and suspension issues and violence in the home, breach of trust, domination and a background of abuse are “aggravating circumstances”.

Some cases would require up to life imprisonment and particular emphasis would be placed on the harm rape does to the victim, the court added.

The case involves an Irish woman and African man who married and had a child before their relationship deteriorated.

Threats to kill

On May 2nd, 2014, after an altercation, they agreed to separate.

On May 25th, 2014, during a row in the kitchen, the man produced a knife, threatened his wife he would “cut open” her face, ordered her upstairs and raped her.

He told her that if she rang gardaí , they would not arrive in time to save her. She pretended reconciliation, left the next morning and got protection orders.

He rang and threatened to kill her the next day and, over ensuing days, confronted her at work, a créche and a shopping centre.

On August 6th, 2014, her mother let him into her parents’ home where he produced a hammer from a bag, struck his wife several times on the head and hit her mother on the head. He fled after neighbours intervened and was later arrested.

The woman suffered three deep lacerations and she and her mother were taken to hospital.

The man was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of charges related to the hammer attack, rape and three threats to kill and concurrent sentences were imposed.

A 14 year “headline” sentence was imposed for the rape, reduced by two years suspension and two years for mitigation, resulting in total prison time of 10 years.

Unfair

The Court of Appeal reduced the headline rape sentence to 12 years, less two for mitigation and 18 months for suspension, making the overall sentence eight years and six months.

On Wednesday, Ronan Munro SC, for the man, argued the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to adjust the sentence, it would be unfair to do so and the sentence contained no error of principle.

The relationship between the man and woman was positive in the early years of the marriage, they had a child together and there was no suggestion of violence before the events in 2014, he said.

The man is a father and not the only person impacted by his imprisonment, counsel added. He was of good behaviour in prison and the court should not “close off all hope” to him.

Seamus Clarke SC, for the DPP, argued the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjust the sentence.

The rape should have been viewed as part of a pattern of violent and abusive behaviour but it appeared to have been viewed by the Court of Appeal in isolation, he said.

The DPP considered the Central Criminal Court had chosen the correct headline sentence, he said.