The Central Criminal Court imposed a suspended four-year prison sentence on R.T. after a jury convicted him of sexually assaulting C.M. The court also ordered him to remain on the Sex Offenders Register for five years from the date of conviction. It made no order for post-release supervision.
The jury acquitted R.T. of rape but found him guilty of sexual assault on 15 November 2011. The charges arose from an incident at a house on 24 January 2010. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan on 2 March 2012, records that C.M. was staying at the home of her sister, E.M., where R.T. also lived.
C.M. told the court that she woke to R.T. inserting a finger into her vagina. She shouted “Stop” and pushed him away. R.T. accepted in a police interview that he had digitally penetrated her, but said he believed she was consenting. He did not give evidence at trial. The judgment records that he later sent C.M. text messages expressing sorrow for what happened and the pain caused.
C.M. declined to make a victim impact statement for privacy reasons. The prosecution told the court she had attended with a counsellor and that the family had been devastated. The judge said the absence of a statement limited the court’s assessment of the offence’s effect on her.
The prosecution submitted that the offence was at the higher end of the scale. The judge assessed it as within the lower level of the middle range, considering the nature and duration of the assault, its circumstances, the distress caused and its lasting impact, as well as the absence of gratuitous violence. The court set a four-year prison term, then suspended it because of what it called strong mitigating factors. The judgment cited R.T.’s remorse, lack of previous convictions and other character evidence among the sentencing circumstances.
The suspension was conditional on R.T. entering a €5,000 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour to all citizens of Ireland for four years. The court said the register requirement remained in force despite the suspended sentence. It declined to impose post-release supervision, finding that the relevant supervision, public-protection, further-offending and rehabilitation concerns were not present in this case.