Category Archives: Unduly lenient
“Unduly Lenient” Sex Offender sentenced increased
Mark Piraino
An osteopath from Surrey who sexually assaulted five male patients over a 12-year period was given an “unduly lenient” 18-month jail term, the Court of Appeal has said.
Three appeal judges increased Mark Piraino’s prison term to four years at a hearing in London, after a plea from a senior Government legal adviser.
Piraino, 40, of Redhill, Surrey, was originally sentenced by a judge at Guildford Crown Court in February. Jurors – who were told that two victims were aged 13 and 15 – had convicted him of a series of sex offences following a trial.
Lady Justice Hallett, who headed the panel of appeal judges, said Piraino “carried on offending” until he was “preying on quite young boys”.
She said appeal judges decided to impose a four-year term after concluding that the 18-month sentence was “not simply merciful” but “unduly lenient”.
“We understand how devastating the news of our decision will be to the offender’s family,” said Lady Justice Hallett. “However we have a duty to the individual complainants and to patients or clients up and down the country who are entitled to trust that healthcare professionals behave appropriately when they are at their most vulnerable.”
Lady Justice Hallett said Piraino’s oldest victim was 31 and added: “He simply carried on offending over a very long period. His offences escalated until he was preying on quite young boys.”
Solicitor General Oliver Heald appeared in person to ask the Court of Appeal to increase Piraino’s sentence.
Mr Heald, Conservative MP for Hertfordshire North East, said after the hearing: “I felt the original sentence didn’t reflect the number of victims, period of offending or the appalling breach of trust. I am pleased the court agreed with me.”
SENTENCES INCREASED TO 26 YEARS BEFORE PAROLE
The killers of a vulnerable man in a “horrific” beating in his own home will have to serve an extra six years each behind bars before they can apply for parole following a Court of Appeal ruling today.
Three judges in London announced that the original 20-year minimum terms imposed on Anthony Graham and Deborah Clark were “unduly lenient”.
Lady Justice Rafferty said that both Graham and Clark, who were convicted of the murder of 57-year-old former BAE Systems worker Mikhail Eno, should now have to serve at least 26 years before they can ask to be considered for parole.
Graham, 41, and Clark, 33, were sentenced to life imprisonment with the 20-year minimum terms at Hull Crown Court in February.
They had been convicted by a jury of the murder of Mr Eno in November 2010 at his flat in Hessle, Yorkshire.
Lady Justice Rafferty, ruling that the original terms were “too low”, described it as a “horrific” case.
Mr Eno was described as kind and generous man whose career had been “distinguished”.
Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC, who referred the case to the Court of Appeal, said after the decision: “Anthony Graham and Deborah Clark took advantage of Mikhail Eno, a vulnerable man living on his own.
“First they moved in and took advantage of his hospitality; next they stole his possessions to buy drugs; and finally they subjected Mr Eno to a sustained and brutal assault – there were over 200 external injuries – which led to his death.
“They callously left him bound and gagged so that he could not raise the alarm and then went out to buy drugs.
“When they got back, rather than calling for an ambulance or helping Mr Eno, they took his last remaining items of property and left him to die alone.
“This was an appalling and distressing murder, a view reflected in the decision of the Court of Appeal which today increased the minimum term of the offenders’ life sentences from 20 to 26 years.”
