Appeal Court Told Sentence for Sibling Sexual Abuse Was “Disproportionate” Under Historic Law

Dublin: Lawyers for a man who sexually abused three of his siblings over a decade have argued before the Court of Appeal that the imposition of consecutive sentences for offences against each victim was legally flawed and resulted in a punishment disproportionate to the legislation in force at the time of the crimes.

Counsel for Gerry Harte (72) submitted that the cumulative eight-year prison sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court effectively reflected a modern sentencing regime, despite the offences being governed by historic legislation that carried a maximum sentence of two years per count.

Harte pleaded guilty to 15 counts of indecent assault—five relating to each of his two younger sisters and his younger brother—committed during the 1970s and 1980s. The victims have waived their right to anonymity, allowing Harte, of Tullynacrunat North, Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, to be named.

In October 2024, Mr Justice Patrick McGrath described each offence as being at the “top end of seriousness” and said consecutive sentences were required to reflect the “serious and persistent nature” of the abuse. He set a headline sentence of 11 years, reduced to eight years after taking mitigating factors into account.

At the Court of Appeal, senior counsel Michael O’Higgins, appearing for Harte, argued that the judge had erred by imposing what he termed a “double imposition” of consecutive sentences—both within the offences relating to individual victims and across the separate complainants.

Mr O’Higgins likened the approach to “trying to get a litre of milk into a one-pint container,” arguing it amounted to an attempt to circumvent statutory sentencing limits applicable at the time of the offences. He said while consecutive sentences could be justified where offences were distinct in time and involved different victims, the compounding of such sentences where a two-year maximum applied was unfair and unlawful.

Describing the case as “curious,” Mr O’Higgins acknowledged that the sentence would likely have been uncontroversial under current legislation, which allows for significantly harsher penalties for sexual offences. However, he argued that applying modern sentencing principles to historic offences resulted in a punishment four times greater than the statutory maximum and was therefore disproportionate.

He also pointed to Harte’s personal circumstances, including his age at the commencement of the offending and a highly dysfunctional family background, arguing these factors were insufficiently reflected in the final sentence.

Responding for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Paul Carroll SC rejected the defence arguments, submitting that no legal error had occurred. He said the abuse suffered by each victim was frequent, prolonged, and occurred at different times over a period of approximately ten years.

Mr Carroll argued the sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive elements to properly reflect the gravity of the offending against each individual victim and had expressly considered the principle of proportionality when arriving at the final sentence.

Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the Court of Appeal would reserve judgment.

During sentencing, the court heard that Harte grew up in a highly dysfunctional household, described as cold and uncaring, with allegations of physical abuse by the parents.

Victim impact statements detailed the severe and lasting harm caused by the abuse. One victim described her childhood as growing up in a “house of horrors.”

Noeleen Connors was 14 when the abuse began in 1971 and said it continued until she fought back as a young adult. Fiona Harte Powell was nine when the abuse started in 1977 and told the court it ended only after she threatened her abuser with a fire poker. She said her disclosure was not adequately supported by her family.

The court also heard that Harte’s younger brother, PJ Harte, was around 11 when the abuse began in 1976.

The appeal judgment is awaited.