The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against an eight-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, imposed for assault causing harm and sexual assault at a Dublin therapy centre. It held that consecutive sentences were justified in the circumstances and that the overall sentence was proportionate.
The appellant had pleaded guilty in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 28 March 2019 to both offences, arising from an incident on Mary Street on 21 January 2017. The sentencing judge imposed three years for assault causing harm and five years for sexual assault, to run consecutively, then suspended the final two years. The resulting term in custody was six years.
The Court of Appeal described how the appellant struck and choked the complainant, who was working as a receptionist, causing her to lose consciousness. It found that while she was unconscious he proceeded to sexually assault her. Medical examinations recorded injuries to her face and upper body, as well as a labial laceration consistent with damage to her clothing. A knife was recovered during the investigation.
The appeal argued that the offences arose from a single event and should have been sentenced concurrently. The appellant also contended that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to mitigation and failed to apply the totality principle. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offences were separate and distinct, with different motivations, and that the assault rendered the complainant unconscious before the sexual assault.
The Court of Appeal accepted that both offences arose from one event but said the circumstances were unusual. It concluded that the initial assault and the subsequent sexual assault were “two entirely separate offences”: the motivations were distinct, and the appellant took the opportunity created by the complainant’s unconsciousness. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to impose consecutive sentences.
The court also rejected the challenge to the sentencing approach. It said the judge’s global sentence assessment and consideration of proportionality did not amount to an error in principle. The court noted the appellant’s prior Romanian conviction for rape of a juvenile as an aggravating factor, and said the plea of guilty had been specifically considered. It was satisfied the sentence was proportionate and dismissed the appeal.