The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on a man convicted of offences of defilement of a child under 15.
The sentence, imposed by the Circuit Court in Offaly on 22 November 2012, was 10 years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended. The appeal court said that left a net sentence of seven years.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore on 25 July 2016 by Mr Justice Birmingham, concerned offending against the appellant’s son between 2009 and 2011, when the child was aged between nine and 11. The judgment said the appellant had sole custody of the boy, who had long-term special needs. It described repeated sexual abuse over about two years, occurring two or three times a week.
The child disclosed the abuse to his aunt in July 2011, and she contacted the authorities. About nine days later, the appellant made voluntary admissions at Tullamore Garda station.
The appeal argued that the sentencing judge had not given enough weight to evidence of the appellant’s intellectual disability, his efforts to obtain treatment and his participation in the Phoenix Programme run by One in Four. It also argued that the sentence was too severe for someone described as, in effect, a first-time offender.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that reports and evidence indicated the appellant had an intellectual disability. The judgment referred to a reported full-scale IQ of 63, described as within the extremely low range of intellectual function and the mild range of intellectual disability.
The sentencing judge had identified the prolonged offending and the breach of parental trust as aggravating factors. The judge also considered mitigating factors, including the appellant’s intellectual difficulties, cooperation with the investigation, guilty plea and lack of relevant previous convictions. The judge had identified 14 years as the ordinary starting point, reduced the sentence to 10 years, then suspended three years.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge was right to regard the offending as very grave and to recognise significant mitigation. It considered whether sufficient credit had been given for that mitigation. Given the reduction from the 14-year starting point to a net sentence of seven years—a 50 per cent reduction—the court said it could identify no error of principle and dismissed the appeal.