The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence imposed on D.H. for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl and resentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. It reduced the headline sentence from four and a half years to two and a half years, then deducted six months for mitigating factors. The court did not suspend any part of the new sentence.
D.H. had been convicted by a jury in October 2021 of one count of sexual assault. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him that December to three and a half years in prison, suspending the final six months subject to conditions that included sexual-offender rehabilitation. He appealed the severity of that sentence. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his separate appeal against conviction.
The appeal judgment records that the assault took place during a single incident in or around late 2013. D.H., then 44, lived with his partner and her daughter, the complainant, who was about 12. While they were alone at home, he touched her vaginal area over and then under her underwear. The court described the offence as non-penetrative and found that it involved a substantial breach of trust and exploitation of the child’s vulnerability. It also accepted that serious harm had been done to her.
The sentencing judge had assessed the offence as at the lower moderate end of seriousness and set a headline term of four years and six months. The Court of Appeal agreed with D.H.’s counsel that this headline sentence was too high and that the sentencing judge had made an error of principle. The court said it was setting the headline term at two years and six months based on its experience of sexual-assault cases.
D.H.’s counsel had also argued that the original sentence did not give enough weight to mitigating circumstances, including his lack of previous convictions and employment history. That ground was no longer pursued at the oral hearing. In resentencing, the appeal court nevertheless took account of his lack of previous convictions, prosocial life, employment, periods of homelessness and the consequence that he would be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
The court did not treat the case’s initial proceedings in the District Court as a reason to reduce the sentence. It said D.H. ultimately opted for trial on indictment in the Circuit Court, where the potential penalties were higher. The court also declined to suspend any part of the new sentence, noting that he contested the trial and had not indicated willingness to undertake a rehabilitation programme.