The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by D.B against the sentence imposed following his conviction for rape, finding no error of principle by the sentencing judge.
D.B was convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court on 1 March 2016 after a seven-day trial. He received an eight-year sentence, backdated to the date of conviction, with the final 12 months suspended for three years on condition of good behaviour. The Court of Appeal agreed with the sentence and dismissed the appeal. It did not alter the sentence.
The conviction arose from an incident in the early hours of 27 February 2013 at D.B’s home in Waterford. The complainant, Ms P, was 22 and D.B’s first cousin. The judgment recounts that she had been drinking with family members and said in evidence that she woke to find D.B having intercourse with her. She told him to stop, and he did. A nurse who examined her later that morning found injuries consistent with the account of sexual assault.
D.B initially denied sexual contact in a Garda interview, then acknowledged sexual contact but said it was consensual. He maintained that defence at trial. He appealed the sentence, arguing that the eight-year headline term placed the offence too high on the sentencing range, that aggravating factors and the victim impact statement had been given excessive weight, and that mitigation and his personal circumstances had not been given enough weight.
The prosecution argued that the sentence reflected the complainant’s vulnerability while asleep and intoxicated, the family relationship, her injuries and the impact of the offence. It also submitted that mitigation was limited, citing D.B’s previous convictions, his not guilty plea and the absence of expressed remorse. The appeal court’s account of the sentencing judge’s decision noted the judge had considered D.B’s decision to stop when asked and his assistance in arranging for Ms P to leave, alongside the aggravating factors.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered the available penalty range, weighed the limited mitigation against substantial aggravating factors, and suspended as much of the headline sentence as could be allowed in the circumstances. It concluded there was no error of principle and dismissed the appeal.