The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient a seven-month prison sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting a child.
The court delivered its decision on 15 November 2021. The sentence under challenge was imposed on 9 February 2021 for an offence committed between 25 December 2016 and 15 April 2017. The seven months were ordered to run consecutively to an existing six-year sentence, with part of that sentence suspended. The man was also declared a sex offender under Part Two of the Sex Offenders Act 2001.
The judgment says the victim’s father reported in April 2017 that his teenage daughter, who has Down Syndrome, had exchanged sexual photographs with adult men through a social media app. After a search of the respondent’s property, gardaí seized a laptop. The respondent admitted asking the girl to send topless photographs and said he knew she was vulnerable. He later attended a garda station voluntarily and made further admissions. No image of the girl was found in his possession, and the specific photograph he accepted receiving could not be identified.
At sentencing, the judge identified a two-year headline sentence and reduced it to seven months after considering mitigating factors. The DPP argued that the headline sentence and the term imposed did not adequately reflect the offence’s gravity or provide general deterrence, particularly given the victim’s vulnerability.
The respondent argued that the sentence had to be considered alongside 35 other sexual exploitation offences committed in the same period. Those offences had been dealt with in two groups in 2019, resulting in six-year sentences with suspended portions. He also relied on his guilty plea, admissions, cooperation and personal circumstances.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the offence’s “squalid” nature and said a seven-month term might be insufficient to meet general deterrence if considered in isolation. It said, however, that the offence’s timing alongside the 35 others was relevant. The judges considered that if all 36 offences had been dealt with together, it was unlikely an additional sentence would have been imposed for this offence.
The court said the two-year headline sentence was low and that a higher one might have been appropriate had it been sentencing the case at first instance. But, viewed in the context of the other offending, the DPP had not met the threshold for the Court of Appeal to intervene. The appeal was dismissed; the seven-month sentence remained in place.