The Court of Appeal has dismissed S.A.’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for sexual assault and buggery offences involving his nephew, who was also his godson.
The offences occurred between January 2004 and January 2006, when the complainant was aged 15 to 17 and S.A. was aged 32 to 33. The judgment describes the offending as very frequent and involving oral sex and anal penetration. It also says S.A. recorded sexual activity on his mobile phone.
In December 2017, Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed nine years’ imprisonment for a number of sexual assault counts, with the final 18 months suspended. It imposed concurrent three-year sentences for buggery offences. The appeal focused on the sexual assault sentences.
S.A. argued that the trial judge’s 12-year starting point before mitigation was too high, and that the mitigating circumstances had not received enough weight. His counsel said a starting point of about 10 years would have been less open to challenge. Counsel also argued that the net sentence of seven and a half years was too severe and could undermine rehabilitation, and that more of the sentence should have been suspended.
The Director of Public Prosecutions defended the sentence, relying on the relationship of trust, the age difference and the duration and intensity of the offending. The judgment records that S.A. had no previous convictions, had a varied work history and had experienced alcohol difficulties. The court was also told he had been abused as a child and was involved in caring for his elderly mother. A psychological report described his cognitive reasoning as in the low-average range.
The Court of Appeal said the question was whether the sentence imposed fell outside the available range and amounted to an error in principle. It said the sentencing judge had approached the task with particular care. Finding no error in principle and that the sentence was within range, the court dismissed the appeal. The sentence therefore remained unchanged.