The Court of Appeal has reduced by three years the overall sentence imposed on P.P. for five child sexual abuse offences committed against his seven-and-a-half-year-old daughter during access visits.
The offences took place over four visits during a 12-month period between October 2009 and October 2010. P.P. was convicted in July 2012.
The original sentencing judge imposed 15 years for rape with the final five years suspended. Further sentences for sexual assault and sexual exploitation included consecutive terms, producing an overall sentence of 22 years with the final seven years suspended.
P.P. appealed against the severity and structure of the sentence. His lawyers argued that the overall term was excessive compared with sentences in other cases and that the use of consecutive sentences disclosed an error in principle.
The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that the sentence was on the high side but argued that it remained within the trial judge’s discretion.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the sentences were sufficiently out of line with previous sentencing decisions to amount to an error of principle. Once such an error is found, an appellate court must impose a fresh sentence rather than merely make a small adjustment to the original one.
In resentencing P.P., the court also considered a favourable report from the prison governor and evidence that he had been engaging regularly with a prison psychologist. The court regarded that engagement as significant to rehabilitation.
The court retained a 15-year sentence for rape but suspended only the final three years. It directed that all of the other sentences run concurrently with that term rather than consecutively.
The practical result was a reduction in the overall sentence from 22 years with seven suspended to 15 years with three suspended.
P.P. was also directed to enter a €500 bond and keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years after release.