While some might argue that this is still a life sentence for the murderer, the move sends a harmful message. Not only does it redeem a violent offender like McSweeney, it is a further slap in the face for victims and their family members who want to see the full extent of justice be enforced. And given McSweeney’s lack of respect to the criminal courts, is this reduction even justified?
McSweeney, labelled a ‘career criminal’ had 28 previous convictions for 69 offences including assaults on police, members of public, burglary, and criminal damage. He even boasted of his crimes on social media. Nine days before the attack, he was released from prison on licence, and was supposed to be recalled to prison for breaching his licence condition but wasn’t at his registered home. Just 24 hours later, he killed Zara Aleena. Detective Whellams has said McSweeney is a “danger to women” who shouldn’t be allowed out again.
In this way, men continually refuse to accept responsibility for their violence against women, and the legal system allows them. McSweeney refused to even attend his initial sentencing hearing last December. Why was behaviour like this rewarded with a shorter sentence? In a statement, Zara’s family expressed their disappointment at McSweeney winning the appeal, saying: “Today’s decision, a decision to reduce the minimum sentence for that repugnant man, aligns with an established legal sentencing framework, a framework we comprehend. Yet, the message it conveys to women is disheartening, suggesting that a ‘life sentence’ may not truly mean a lifetime behind bars.”
“Men continually refuse to accept responsibility for their violence against women, and the legal system allows them”
McSweeney’s barrister argued for the tariff reduction, saying the attack was opportunistic rather than premeditated, though there was clearly a sexual encounter in mind, with or without consent. Given that McSeeney was filmed following these women closely late at night and even chasing them, it’s hard to consider that he was looking for a consensual sexual experience. Zara’s death and sexual assault was no ‘spur of the moment’ act of violence – McSweeney had intended to hurt a woman that night and chased several for hours to ensure he would.
The law consistently fails women for gender-based violence. Despite an all-time high number of rape cases being recorded in 2021, only 5% of rapes that were given an outcome by the police in December 2021 resulted in a charge. According to the government’s 2023 data, conviction volumes of rape-flagged cases reduced by 2.8% compared to 2021-22. The number of attackers being convicted of rape is going down, despite the number of sexual offences (as recorded by the police in the year ending March 2023) going up.
McSweeney’s case shows that even when attackers are convicted, justice isn’t guaranteed, as perpetrators can go on taunting victims and their families from within prison. In Zara’s family’s case, this news is also a harsh interruption into their grief. Women’s charity Refuge has also refuted the appeal decision, saying: “By appealing his sentence, her killer has shown he has no compassion or remorse for his abhorrent crimes, and has only served to inflict further trauma and pain on her family.
“At Refuge, we know that it is common for perpetrators of abuse to use the criminal justice system, and appeal processes, to inflict further harm onto women, and their families. Court processes should not be facilitating further abuse, and need to do more to support families of those who are killed and deliver justice for victims.”
If anything, McSweeney should have had more years added to his sentence, not less. Currently, the Ministry of Justice is proposing new laws that compels offenders to attend their hearing, or risk having two years added on to their sentence. McSweeney broke so many rules and made a mockery of the justice system and yet the system is working in his favour. When will the law favour women? When will women matter?