The Court of Appeal has quashed a fully suspended sentence for a man convicted of sexually assaulting a child and resentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, with the final six months suspended.
The court found the original sentence unduly lenient after reviewing the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The decision was delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 22 June 2023. Justices McCarthy and Kennedy also sat.
N.B. pleaded guilty in May 2022 to one count of sexual assault. The plea was entered on the basis that the sentencing court would hear the full facts relating to all four counts on the indictment. Three other sexual assault charges were discontinued by nolle prosequi; they did not result in convictions. In July 2022, the Eastern Circuit Criminal Court, sitting in Bray, imposed two years’ imprisonment, suspended in full, with probation and other conditions.
Evidence at sentencing described four incidents between late spring 2016 and early autumn 2017, when the complainant was about 12 to 14 years old. The judgment said N.B. was then in a relationship with her mother and was in a position of trust in the family. Three incidents were described as occurring at the family home; another took place in the cabin of N.B.’s lorry. The court said the incidents involved touching the child’s breasts and private parts and included an element of grooming. The complainant’s victim impact statement described trauma affecting her home life, schooling, mental health and friendships.
The DPP argued that the original headline sentence did not reflect the seriousness of repeated assaults, the breach of trust or the harm caused, and that the sentence had been excessively reduced and suspended. N.B.’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge had considered the evidence and aggravating factors, and that the guilty plea, employment history and probation conditions supported the sentence.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had correctly allowed a 20 per cent reduction for mitigation, but the two-and-a-half-year headline sentence was too low. It set a four-year headline sentence, then applied a 25 per cent reduction, leaving three years. The court said suspending the whole sentence had been unjustified given the seriousness of the offending and the lack of a sound evidential basis for doing so.
The court suspended six months of the new sentence, citing N.B.’s work history and the prospect of rehabilitation. It also decided to impose a post-release supervision order, but left its conditions to be discussed with counsel. The source judgment does not specify those conditions.