The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by C.I. against a four-year prison sentence, fully suspended subject to conditions, for assault causing harm to her daughter and three counts of ill treating and neglecting three of her children.
The offences involved children aged two, four and eight and took place between February and August 2012. The judgment records that C.I. pleaded guilty to the charges. The appeal concerned the sentence, not the convictions.
At the sentencing hearing, Detective Garda Kearney described finding the three children in a double bed at the family home on 1 August 2012. He said the appellant was extremely intoxicated, the house was in a filthy state, and the children were lethargic and wearing soiled nappies. He also described poor sanitary conditions and out-of-date powdered milk. A social worker told the court the neglect was among the most horrific incidents she had witnessed in ten years of professional experience.
Evidence from the children’s foster carer described their condition and progress after they entered her care in August 2012. She said one child initially wet the bed and struggled to express emotions, while the four-year-old boy spoke only two words, was underweight and fearful, and needed medical help with toilet training. The carer reported that after 18 months with her family, the children had made progress and integrated into the community.
The appeal argued that the sentencing judge should have selected a lower starting sentence and explained more clearly how he had accounted for mitigation. That mitigation included the appellant’s efforts to address a severe alcohol problem and her participation in programmes offered by the Probation Service. The Court of Appeal also noted evidence of her rehabilitative steps after her arrest and the children’s continuing need for protection while in care.
The court said the appellant had not shown that the sentence was significantly out of line with the comparators raised in submissions. It accepted the account of those cases put forward by the appellant, while noting that it had not seen the judgments themselves. The court found that the sentencing judge had treated the offending as mid-range, applied proportionality and accounted for mitigation by suspending the entire sentence, even though he had not discussed each mitigating factor individually.
Finding no error in the sentencing approach or sentence imposed, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.