The Court of Appeal dismissed W.D.’s appeal against convictions for attempted anal rape and sexual assault, finding the trial was satisfactory and the convictions safe. It allowed his sentence appeal in part, increasing the suspended portion of the sentence for attempted rape from 18 months to 2 years and 6 months.
The court said the change meant W.D. would serve three years in custody rather than four, provided he complied with the suspension conditions. Those conditions remained as set by the sentencing judge. The court did not alter the concurrent two-year sentence for sexual assault; no appeal complaint had been made about that sentence.
W.D. had been convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court on 23 October 2019. He was sentenced on 15 June 2020 to five years and six months for attempted anal rape, with the final 18 months suspended for two years subject to conditions, and two years for sexual assault, to run concurrently. Both sentences were dated from 19 February 2020.
The appeal challenged the lawfulness of the Garda arrest under public-order legislation and the seizure of clothing under the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The appellant maintained at trial that he was not the person arrested or detained. The appeal court said that, on that position, he could not rely on an alleged breach of another person’s constitutional rights. It also examined the substance of both arguments: it found no error in the trial judge’s conclusion that the arrest was lawful, and said the clothing seizure provision could apply in the circumstances described. The court dismissed both conviction grounds.
On sentence, the court rejected the argument that the starting point for attempted rape was too high. It concluded, however, that the sentencing judge had not allowed enough for W.D.’s substantial vulnerabilities and adversities, including homelessness, addiction and psychological difficulties. A custodial sentence remained necessary, but the court increased the suspended portion. The same conditions—including probation engagement, treatment-related requirements and no contact with the injured party—continued to apply.