The Court of Appeal found an error of principle in the sentencing of J.P., convicted of 14 sexual assaults on J.G., and suspended the final 21 months of each eight-year sentence. The court left the concurrent sentences and a €24,000 compensation order in place, and ordered 18 months of post-release supervision.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed after a jury trial in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 25 November 2010. J.P. appealed their severity, arguing that the sentencing judge had not adequately weighed mitigation, had not made the reasoning clear and had given excessive weight to his conduct of the defence. He also challenged the compensation order.
The offences followed a complaint that J.P. had abused J.G. on at least 15 occasions between 2002 and 2004, when J.G. was aged 11 or 12. The judgment describes J.P. as a trusted family friend who brought J.G. to karate lessons. J.G. said assaults occurred while he changed at J.P.’s home. The judgment also records that J.P. admitted the allegations to gardaí in 2006, but later denied the abuse at trial and disputed the voluntariness of his admissions. The jury convicted him on 14 counts.
The Court of Appeal said it could not determine from the sentencing judge’s remarks how aggravating and mitigating factors had been weighed. It held that the lack of clarity amounted to an error of principle and reviewed the sentences. It did not need to decide the arguments about the compensation order, noting that the €24,000 had already been paid and could be regarded as an additional punishment.
On appeal, the court received a psychological report based on tests conducted in January 2015. It described J.P.’s cognitive abilities as significantly impaired, with scores in the borderline or extremely low ranges. The court said the report suggested the sentencing judge may have erred in inferring from J.P.’s military service that earlier cognitive difficulties no longer affected him.
The court identified J.G.’s age, repeated offending over two years and breach of trust as aggravating factors. Mitigation included J.P.’s previous good character, 31 years of service in the defence forces and significant cognitive deficits. The court also considered his stated willingness to take part in a sex-offender programme.
Although it said the original sentences were on the high side, the court left them in place because the appeal came more than four years after sentencing. It suspended the last 21 months of each term, subject to J.P. keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for two years after release, secured by his own bond of €1,000. It ordered 18 months’ post-release supervision, including counselling, and directed that the psychological report be sent to the Director of the Probation Service to support pre- and post-release programmes.