The Court of Appeal has dismissed P.N.’s appeal against the severity of a 10-year prison sentence for defiling a child under 15, finding no error in principle. The final two years were suspended for five years on terms, leaving an immediate custodial period of eight years.
P.N. was sentenced on 1 April 2022 after pleading guilty on a representative basis to one count of defilement of a child under 15. A further defilement count and a sexual assault count were taken into consideration. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which delivered judgment on 21 February 2023.
The judgment said P.N. was 21 when he met the injured party, who was 13. Their sexual relationship began in late 2005 and continued for about three years, including after he learned her age. She became pregnant at 15 and gave birth to a daughter. The court noted that the relationship continued until she was 16.
In 2020, the injured party made a complaint to Gardaí. She described physical violence, including black eyes, bruising and a broken nose. Her victim impact statement described the loss of her childhood and continuing effects, including sleep problems and nightmares. The sentencing judge had identified the age disparity, duration of the offending, pregnancy, coercive control, violence and harm to the injured party as aggravating factors. Mitigation included an early guilty plea, cooperation, remorse and an assessment of moderate to low risk of reoffending.
P.N. argued that the 12-year headline sentence was too high and that the reduction to 10 years gave insufficient credit for mitigation, including the effect of imprisonment on his children. The prosecution argued that the headline sentence reflected the seriousness of prolonged offending, the power imbalance, control and harm.
The appeal court said the 12-year headline sentence was at the lower end of the upper range, although the sentencing judge had described the case as at the upper end of the mid-range. It considered that any error in that classification was not an error of substance and that the sentence fell within the trial judge’s margin of appreciation. The court also regarded the 16.7% reduction for mitigation as low, but found it within that margin, noting P.N.’s previous convictions.
The court said the suspended portion was intended to encourage rehabilitation and that the overall reduction from the headline sentence was 33%. It also observed that no evidence had been given about the sexual assault count taken into consideration, which appeared to have played no part in the sentencing assessment. The court dismissed the appeal.