The Court of Appeal has ruled that the sentences imposed on M.L. for sexually assaulting six sisters were unduly lenient, and said it would hold a fresh sentencing hearing before substituting a sentence.
The judgment, delivered on 18 June 2015, followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 31 May 2013. The Court of Appeal said intervention on an undue-leniency review requires a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence.
M.L. was found guilty by majority verdict after an 18-day trial that concluded in November 2012. The 60 counts concerned sexual assaults against six sisters over more than 10 years, from 1994 to 2005. M.L. lived in the family home as their mother’s partner. The judgment said all but one offence occurred in the home; one took place in M.L.’s car.
The trial judge imposed four years’ imprisonment, with the final 12 months suspended, on 37 counts carrying a maximum five-year sentence. On 23 counts carrying a maximum 14-year sentence, the judge imposed seven years, with the final two years suspended for five years on condition that M.L. undergo a sex-offender treatment programme in prison. A two-year post-release supervision order was also made.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had given inadequate weight to the seriousness and duration of the offending, the number of victims, the breach of trust and the harm caused. M.L.’s counsel argued that the sentence was substantial and proportionate, and that its suspended portion encouraged rehabilitation.
The appeal court acknowledged the sentencing judge’s attempt to balance proportionality with rehabilitation. But it said the offending involved a fundamental breach of the trust placed in M.L. and caused each victim harm and suffering. The court concluded that the starting point for the 14-year maximum offences was too low and that the sentence significantly departed from the appropriate overall sentence.
The court did not impose a replacement sentence in this judgment. It said it would convene a fresh sentencing hearing, receive any further material from either party and then substitute a new sentence. The DPP had not sought consecutive sentences.