The Court of Appeal has dismissed O.G.P.’s appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed for offences committed when he was about 13, concluding that the sentencing judge made no error of principle.
O.G.P. was convicted by a jury of oral rape and pleaded guilty to four sexual assaults against his younger cousin, who was about seven at the time. The offences took place over two months in late 2018 at the complainant’s family home in a village in Leinster. The complainant’s identity is protected in the judgment.
The Central Criminal Court imposed one year’s detention for the rape and concurrent nine-month terms for each sexual assault. It also ordered two years of post-release supervision. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 12 October 2023, records that the appellant was just short of 18 when sentenced and had committed the offences as a child.
The appeal raised seven grounds, including that detention should not have been immediate, that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to adult sentencing guidance, aggravating factors and the contested rape charge, and too little weight to the appellant’s age, mitigation and efforts at rehabilitation. His lawyers also argued that delay in the case could result in him spending a short period in an adult prison after leaving a children detention school. They estimated that period at about 31 days.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant’s youth and the Children Act’s requirement that detention be a last resort. It nevertheless agreed that the offences crossed the threshold for detention, given the multiple penetrative assaults and rape. The judges said the appellant’s age and immaturity significantly reduced his culpability, but found that he knew the conduct was wrong and had taken steps to keep it secret.
The court also rejected the challenges to the sentencing judge’s treatment of the complainant’s likely anxiety about the trial, the use of deterrence and the distinction between the guilty pleas to the assaults and the contested rape charge. It said the appellant had received a substantial reduction for mitigation, including his age, rehabilitation efforts and the way the trial was conducted, but was not entitled to the guilty-plea discount for the rape count.
The Court of Appeal described the one-year detention term for rape as the irreducible minimum in the circumstances. It said where a sentence is served is a matter for the executive and that the possibility of a short transfer to an adult prison did not justify changing the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.