The Court of Appeal set aside the sentences imposed on D.F. for two sexual assaults and substituted concurrent terms of 18 months and three years’ imprisonment. It also ordered 12 months of post-release supervision. The court said the appellant would remain on the sex offenders register.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court on 8 March 2013: three years for an offence involving Ms. EO’R and five years for an offence involving Ms. AD. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal against the severity of those sentences and delivered judgment on 9 December 2014.
The judgment said the assault of Ms. AD occurred in June 2007. She was 22, and the appellant was her uncle. The court recounted that she had gone to bed after a social gathering when he entered her room and sexually assaulted her. She told him to leave, and he went downstairs. The court said she was later hospitalised for post-traumatic stress disorder and that the incident had a serious impact on her.
About three months later, the appellant attended a party organised by Ms. EO’R, Ms. AD’s sister. The court said Ms. EO’R, then about 39, had gone to bed with her four-year-old daughter when the appellant entered the room, pulled off the duvet and touched her bottom. He left after she challenged him. The court described the physical act as less grave, while noting that Ms. EO’R was seriously affected and that the offences had divided the wider family.
The appellant had pleaded in the case involving Ms. EO’R. The case involving Ms. AD went to a jury, which convicted him on one of two counts. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge discussed whether outstanding counts could be resolved together and referred to credit for doing so. On appeal, the appellant argued that this exchange put pressure on him to plead and created a perception that he was sentenced for matters beyond the offences he admitted or was convicted of.
The Court of Appeal said the judge could seek a final resolution, but had to make clear that no pressure was being applied and that declining the suggestion would not adversely affect sentencing. The way the exchange was left, the appeal court said, gave scope for concern that the unanswered suggestions continued to influence the sentencing process. It found an error of principle and said the original sentences significantly departed from those imposed for comparable offences.
The court reduced the sentence for Ms. EO’R’s assault to 18 months, while saying it would have considered a lower sentence had the offence stood alone. It cited the presence of her young daughter and the fact that it was a second offence against the same family in a family home. It reduced the sentence for the assault of Ms. AD from five years to three years. Both terms run concurrently from the date specified by the sentencing judge.
The supervision order requires the appellant to follow probation service directions for 12 months after release. The judgment said failure to comply with supervision or sex-offender registration obligations could constitute a further offence and result in a return to court.