The Court of Appeal reduced John Prior’s sentence for two indecent assault convictions from 18 months to concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment, finding that a shorter custodial sentence was sufficient to mark the seriousness of the offending.
The appeal concerned sentence only. The court said it had dismissed Prior’s appeal against conviction on 24 November, and that its judgment dealt with the sentence aspect. The source does not state the year of that November date.
Prior was convicted in July 2016. The offences occurred during the summer of 1985 and involved his wife’s 10-year-old niece, who was visiting Ireland from the United States. In one incident, while accompanying her uncle-in-law to a supermarket, the child was subjected to an inappropriate conversation and he placed her hand on his penis over his trousers. In a later incident, dated 25 August 1985, he put his hand inside her underwear and rubbed her clitoris.
The Circuit Court imposed an 18-month prison sentence after a brief sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeal noted that no evidence was called for Prior and that only limited information about him was provided. His appeal argued that the sentence was excessive and gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors. Counsel highlighted business setbacks following the convictions and imprisonment, including difficulty obtaining insurance for properties, among them apartment blocks owned by Prior.
The appeal court said it could give only limited consideration to those post-sentence business difficulties when deciding whether the sentencing judge had erred in principle. It agreed that custody was appropriate, citing the seriousness and impact of the offences, the child’s vulnerability and the position of trust. The child had been separated from her family while her mother underwent surgery.
The court also considered Prior’s age, health issues, lack of previous convictions and contributions to society. It concluded that the offending required a period in custody, but that a term shorter than 18 months could mark its gravity. It substituted 12 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and said it was sentencing as of the date of its judgment. The supplied extract ends mid-sentence after noting that Prior had belatedly said he accepted the jury’s verdict.