The Court of Appeal has overturned a wholly suspended sentence given to a man who subjected his then partner to physical attacks and “appalling” coercive control.
James ‘Jake’ Boles (24) was in January sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, fully suspended, by Judge Orla Crowe at Trim Circuit Court for one count of coercive control and five counts of assault causing harm to the woman at two addresses in Ratoath, Co Meath between January 1st and April 5th, 2019.
His victim (22) waived her anonymity so that Boles, of Rathborne Avenue, Ashtown, Dublin 15, can be named.
At the Court of Appeal on Friday, Mr Justice John Edwards said the court would re-sentence Boles to one year in jail having regard to the nature and frequency of the assaults, which he said inflicted “egregious” psychological and emotional abuse on the victim.
Cutting off family members: ‘It had never occurred to me that you could grieve somebody who was still alive’
The bird-shaped obsession that drives James Crombie, one of Ireland’s best sports photographers
The Dublin riots, one year on: ‘I know what happened doesn’t represent Irish people’
The week in US politics: Gaetz fiasco shows Trump he won’t get everything his way
Mr Justice Edwards said the three-judge court found that the trial judge had erred in fully suspending the sentence, in what was a departure from the norm.
Humiliation
Previously, Carl Hanahoe BL, for the State, submitted that the sentence was unduly lenient due to the level of physical violence involved, the period over which the offences occurred, the nature and frequency of the violence, the restraint and humiliation of the complainant, and the impact the offending had on her.
He argued that an “excessive discount” had been applied by the trial judge for the mitigating factors in the case and that she had erred in nominating an “actual sentence” of two years’ imprisonment, which was then fully suspended.
His earlier sentencing hearing was told that Boles and his former partner began seeing each other when she was 17 and he was 19 but had broken up in 2018. However, they later got back together and he became “physically and emotionally abusive” to her.
The assaults included dragging the complainant by the hair along the floor, putting his hand over her mouth while violently screaming abuse in her ear and pushing his fist into her face, causing bruising. The sentencing court also heard he pushed the woman down a stairs and on another occasion verbally abused the woman and slammed her head against a headboard.
Mr Hanahoe had argued that although violence is not necessarily a component of the offence of coercion, it constituted a significant aggravating factor in the offending. He said that the trial judge identified three years’ imprisonment as a headline figure before applying a one-year discount for Boles’ guilty pleas and previous good character.
Counsel said the complainant was subject to “physical abuse on a weekly basis”, which was a “dominant feature” in the relationship.
‘Very serious category’
Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, sitting at the Court of Appeal, noted that a weekly assault occurring over four months brought the case into a “very serious category”. Mr Justice Edwards said the cumulative nature of the assaults and coercion were “appalling” and “very damaging” to the complainant.
Mr Justice Edwards also noted that the woman’s victim impact statement was “both poignant and horrendous”.
David Staunton BL, for Boles, had argued that punishment can be applied in “many different guises” but that he would not seek to “deprecate the severity” of the offending. He said the question for the Court of Appeal was whether or not the trial judge acted outside her margin of appreciation when coming to a “fork in the road” over deciding on suspending the sentence.
Counsel said the trial judge acted “impeccably”, within her margin for discretion and that while the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly lenient. He said that his client had since been “publicly shamed” which was a “significant penalty” in addition to losing his job as a security guard because of the convictions.
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, also sitting at the court, said the purpose of anonymity “is to protect the victim, not your client”.