Judgment: 2021-05-13 · Court archive

Court of Appeal rejects challenge to 12-year sentence for sexual offences against stepdaughter

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding no basis to reduce the term or suspend part of it.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • A.B (Appellant)
What

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding no basis to reduce the term or suspend part of it.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • family home
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has rejected A.B.’s appeal against the severity of his 12-year prison sentence for sexual offences against his stepdaughter, leaving the sentence in place.

The Court of Appeal has rejected A.B.’s appeal against the severity of his 12-year prison sentence for sexual offences against his stepdaughter, leaving the sentence in place.

In a judgment delivered on 13 May 2021, the court said the offences began shortly before the girl’s 12th birthday and continued until she was 16. The judgment said they included oral sex and repeated rape, sometimes weekly or twice weekly, at the family home while her mother was at work. The last offence was recorded as 30 June 2017.

A.B. had been convicted by a jury of multiple offences. He pleaded guilty to three counts of defilement, relating to separate incidents of sexual intercourse. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms, including 12 years on the rape counts, and took those three counts into consideration. The sentence was set against a 15-year headline sentence, with three years’ mitigation attributed to A.B.’s previous good character and limited English. The appeal against conviction had been dismissed in February 2021.

A.B. argued that the sentencing judge should have given more weight to the guilty pleas and his cooperation with Gardaí, and should have suspended part of the sentence. His counsel accepted that the 15-year headline sentence could not be criticised. The prosecution argued that pleas to three discrete incidents did not mitigate sentences for offences proved after a trial in which the complainant’s account was challenged.

The Court of Appeal said guilty pleas ordinarily may mitigate sentence, but found the three pleas had no meaningful mitigating effect given the scale and frequency of the offending. It also rejected reliance on cooperation or admissions during the investigation, saying A.B. later resiled from the substance of those admissions and contested the case.

The court found no evidential basis to suspend any part of the 12-year term. It said the sentencing judge had already taken A.B.’s limited English and background into account, and it would not have regard to a Governor’s Report about his conduct and engagement in prison. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review