The Court of Appeal has quashed as unduly lenient a sentence imposed on P. R. for 17 counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault, and resentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, with three years suspended. The remaining 24 months are subject to credit for time already served.
The Director of Public Prosecutions applied under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court for County Offaly on 21 March 2018. The sentencing judge had imposed five years on one indecent assault count, suspended all but the final nine months, and taken the other 18 counts into consideration.
The Court of Appeal said the offending began when the victim, who was the respondent’s son, was nine and continued until he was 21. The judgment described assaults at different locations in the family home and a final offence at the respondent’s workplace. The victim’s complaint to gardaí in April 2014 triggered the investigation. The appeal court also noted that the sentencing judge had described the victim impact statement as harrowing and recorded the effect on the victim and family.
The prosecution argued that the sentencing judge had understated the gravity of the offending, given insufficient weight to aggravating circumstances and deterrence, and placed excessive weight on mitigation and rehabilitation. The appeal court rejected the challenge to the headline sentence: it found no error in the initial seven-year aggregate headline sentence or the reduction to five years under the totality principle.
But the court upheld the complaint that the discount for mitigation was excessive. It said an immediate custodial sentence measured in years was required. The respondent’s guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, work record, age, family circumstances, apology, offer of restitution and willingness to engage in rehabilitation were substantial mitigating factors. However, the court said they did not justify the 85% discount applied by the sentencing judge; a discount of 40% to 50% would have been within the proper range.
The appeal court said the excessive discount was an error of principle that produced a sentence substantially outside the norm. It therefore quashed the original sentence and resentenced the respondent. In setting the final order, it took account of the prosecution’s delay in bringing the review, the respondent’s release in October 2018 after serving the original sentence, his payment of the offered restitution and his participation in rehabilitation. It suspended three years of the five-year sentence, leaving 24 months to be served with credit for time already served.