The Court of Appeal quashed a five-year sentence imposed on M.W. for six sexual assaults after finding the sentencing judge had not considered his youth at the time of the offences. It substituted a four-year sentence, suspending the final year on conditions.
M.W. had pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual assault. The offences involved his younger female cousin, who lived beside him, and occurred at locations around his family home. The indictment covered a period from January 2006 to December 2010. The judgment described the complainant as aged between six and 11 and M.W. as aged between 17 and 22 during that period.
The appeal followed the sentence imposed on 22 October 2019: five years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, with the final year suspended. The sentencing judge had set a six-year headline sentence and allowed a limited reduction for the late guilty plea. M.W. argued, among other grounds, that the sentence was excessive and that his youth and other mitigating circumstances had not been adequately considered. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the sentencing judge had treated M.W.’s late plea as an aggravating factor. It said the judge’s remarks about the prospect of trial related to the impact on the complainant, and found no error on that point. The appeal court also said the judge had not erred in the discount allowed for mitigation, noting that the plea came at a very late stage.
The court found, however, that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by failing to consider M.W.’s age. Evidence at trial left uncertainty about whether the offences continued for years or only months. The court said there was a distinct possibility that they occurred over months when M.W. was about 18, rather than across the full period alleged in the indictment. It treated his youth as an extenuating factor reducing his moral culpability.
The court set a five-year headline sentence, reduced it to four years and suspended the final year. The suspension was conditional on good behaviour for three years and a €100 bond. M.W. must comply with probation service directions and reside somewhere other than next door to the complainant. The court also imposed two years of post-release supervision, during which he must attend an appropriate therapeutic service as directed by probation. The judgment said this supervision was a separate order.