The Court of Appeal adjusted the sentence imposed on S. O’S. for sexual assaults against two sisters, backdating the term to 27 February 2018 and reducing the sentence on the count concerning T.O. The appeal court otherwise upheld the main sentence, finding that an error in the sentencing judge’s remarks about trial evidence did not make the overall sentence unjustified.
The appellant had been convicted in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of 24 counts relating to N.O. and one relating to T.O. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms, including eight years with the final year suspended. The Court of Appeal heard an appeal against sentence.
The convictions concerning N.O. related to assaults between 2005 and 2010, when she was aged between six and 12. She testified that the appellant assaulted her during overnight stays at his home. T.O. testified about one incident when she was aged six or seven and staying at her grandmother’s house. A formal complaint was made to Gardaí in 2015.
The appeal court rejected the challenge to the nine-year headline sentence used for the offending against N.O. It said the prolonged offending, the complainants’ young ages, their vulnerability and the abuse of trust made the conduct serious, although it was not at the upper level in terms of the nature of the acts. The court was not persuaded that the resulting sentence was unjustified.
The court did find that the sentencing judge erred by treating the manner in which the defence contested the trial as an aggravating factor. An accused is entitled to contest a trial, it said. But the court was not satisfied that this error materially affected the headline sentence; in imposing sentence, the judge had relied on abuse of trust as an aggravating factor.
For the count concerning T.O., the court ruled that the maximum available penalty was five years because the period alleged straddled the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 and the Sex Offenders Act 2001. It replaced the six-year term with three years’ imprisonment, concurrent with the other sentences.
The court also changed the sentence’s start date. The appellant had been in custody from 27 February 2018, but the sentencing judge had not sufficiently explained why the term was not backdated. The Court of Appeal therefore backdated the sentence to that date. The judgment does not state that the appeal court otherwise altered the eight-year term with a suspended final year.