Man who raped brother at their home fails in bid have prison sentence reduced

Jailed abuser Graham Daly has failed to convince the Court of Appeal that his eight-and-a-half-year jail sentence for repeatedly raping his younger brother was too severe.

Daly, of Clonree, Newport, Co Tipperary, was found guilty by a jury of seven counts of raping and sexually abusing his brother on dates between January 1998 and December 2002 following a Central Criminal Court trial in December 2021. The trial heard that most of the abuse took place in the family home in County Limerick.

Daly, 40 had pleaded not guilty but was jailed for eight and a half years with no part suspended in January 2022.

Sentencing judge Ms Justice Karen O’Connor said Daly was “a big brother who should have protected his younger brother” but instead had abused him over a four-year period from when the boy was 10 years old.

The court heard Daly did not accept the verdict of the jury and continues to maintain his innocence. His younger brother, Thomas, waived his right to anonymity, meaning Graham Daly could be named.

Daly had suggested that his brother was “lying because he was jealous of his achievements” and that the younger man “wanted to destroy his older brother's life” because Daly disclosed to his parents that his younger brother is gay.  

Having unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in November, Daly appealed the length of his sentence submitting that the trial judge erred in assessing the offences “as being of such severity that they warranted a headline sentence range of 10 to 15 years”. 

Daly’s lawyers also submitted that the judge erred in balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, “resulting in a sentence which was disproportionate and excessive”.

Daly’s lawyer's submissions referred to a Supreme Court observation on the characteristics of cases that fall into the higher band for sentencing as having “a more than usual level of degradation of the victim or the use of violence or intimidation beyond that associated with the offence, or the abuse of trust".

Counsel for Daly submitted that the facts of Daly’s case did not meet that threshold and that while the offending did involve degradation and a breach of trust, “the degradation did not go beyond that associated with the offences themselves”.

Daly’s lawyers also submitted that the trial judge did not take the appellant’s young age of between 14 and 18 into account in mitigation and in the reduction from a headline sentence of 13 years down to eight and half years.

Lawyers for the State submitted that Daly would have turned 18 during the outset of the period between January 2002 and December 2002 during which two rapes were committed.

The State submitted the sentencing judge took account of “all the pertinent factors, including the appellant’s minority but also of the impact of this offending on the complainant”.

Counsel for the State said it was not accepted by the DPP that insufficient credit was given to Daly in mitigation, as there was no guilty plea available to the sentencing judge, and submitted that the range of sentences open to the trial judge was permissible.

In dismissing the appeal at the Court of Appeal today, Mr Justice John Edwards said there were “sound reasons for locating the gravity of the appellant’s offending in the range that would attract a headline of between 10 and 15 years in the case of an adult”.

“In our assessment, placing it in that range was justified by the multiplicity of aggravating factors. This was not one-off offending. Rather it was persistent and repeat offending over a considerable period of time, escalating all the while in seriousness, and culminating in oral rape and anal rape,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

Mr Justice Edwards said Daly’s victim was “vulnerable” and that an age gap had been “exploited” by the appellant, which gave rise to a “significant” breach of trust.

Mr Justice Edwards said Daly’s victim suffered “very significant trauma, which persists to this day”.

The judge said the Court of Appeal found “no error” in the sentencing judge placing the offending in the 10-15 year range and was “not persuaded that the sentencing judge was in error in starting at 13 years – every sentencing judge has to have a margin of appreciation”.

Regarding the discounted portion from the headline sentence, Mr Justice Edwards said Daly benefited by approximately a 35% reduction in the absence of a guilty plea.

“In circumstances where we have found no error in the approach of the sentencing judge, the appeal against severity of sentence must be dismissed,” said Mr Justice Edwards.