Sex offender's plea to have prison sentence reduced is dismissed

Peel man claimed it was 'manifestly excessive'

* A warning that this story contains information which some readers may find distressing.

A Peel man who sexually assaulted a sleeping woman has had an appeal to reduce his sentence rejected.

Paul McCormack, of Castle Street, was jailed in December last year after admitting two offences of indecent assault.

He struck in the early hours of 6 December 2020 when the woman had ‘passed out’ after a night out; she’d woken to find McCormack violating her and taking photos or videos at the same time.

You can find out more about the case HERE.

‘Manifestly Excessive’

However the 47-year-old argued that the 30 month custodial sentence he received was ‘manifestly excessive’ and took his case to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man to appeal.

McCormack’s advocate told Judge of Appeal Cross KC and Acting Deemster Caine that the two offences should have been treated as one continuing offence.

This, he said, would have meant the sentence for one should have been aggravated by the other; the advocate also described the reduction of two months for totality as ‘inadequate’.

It was also argued that the sentencing deemster, Graeme Cook, had ‘fell into error’ by concluding that the offences were a breach of trust and that the presence of others in the property was aggravating.

This, the advocate said, meant the sentence imposed on McCormack should have been two years or less which would have allowed the deemster to impose a suspended sentence supervision order.

‘Gravity of the offending’

Judge of Appeal Cross KC and Acting Deemster Caine disagreed with Deemster Cook that this was a case of abuse of trust although they agreed with him that abuse of trust can take many forms.

In addition they said they believed, in view of the particular circumstances of this offending, that he was wrong to conclude that the presence of others in the house was aggravating.  

Criticising the construction of McCormack’s sentence as a ‘cause for complaint’ they said they did not agree that it was necessary in this case to impose consecutive sentences.

However they said that they did agree that the deemster was correctly trying to impose sentences ‘which reflected the gravity of the offending’.

“We do not agree with the deemster that it was necessary in this case (although it may be in others) to impose consecutive sentences. We recognise though that what the deemster was seeking to do, correctly in our view, was to impose sentences which reflected the gravity of the offending.” – Judge of Appeal Cross KC and Acting Deemster Caine

‘Vulnerable’

Describing the victim as ‘particularly vulnerable’ due to her circumstances the deemsters said they were satisfied that she had suffered psychological harm although said it fell short of severe.

They determined that the ultimate sentence imposed on McCormack was not manifestly excessive.

“The facts speak for themselves – these were offences committed against a particularly vulnerable woman whom the appellant should have protected,” they added.  

Telling McCormack that the situation was made worse by the fact he filmed his criminal behaviour they told him: “Imprisonment of some length was inevitable.

“No question of a suspended sentence could ever arise in these circumstances.”

Judgement

You can find the full judgement HERE.

If you’ve been affected by any of the issues in this story there are details of local organisations that provide advice and support HERE.