The Court of Appeal has quashed sentences imposed on J.M. for five sexual assaults against his granddaughter and replaced them with concurrent nine-year prison terms, backdated to the date he first went into prison for the offending.
The appeal arose from the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, alleging undue leniency. The original sentences, imposed on 17 June 2024, were four years on each count, running concurrently, with the final 12 months suspended.
A jury found J.M. guilty in June 2022 of five sexual assaults. The complainant was aged between six and 13 at the times of the offences. The judgment says the assaults included attempted vaginal penetration, which caused her pain. The offences occurred at the complainant’s home, in a shed at the rear of J.M.’s home, in J.M.’s home, and in a deer-stalking shed in woods in County Wicklow.
The Court of Appeal said the original five-year headline sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offending, the harm caused, the complainant’s age, the frequency of the assaults or the serious breach of trust by her grandfather, who was effectively in loco parentis. It described the offending as grave and close to attempted rape, while noting that attempted rape was not charged and was not the subject of the convictions. The court said the headline sentence was too low and its effect on the final sentence made it unduly lenient.
In resentencing, the court set a headline sentence of 11 years and allowed a two-year reduction for mitigation. It considered J.M.’s age, health, lack of previous convictions, pro-social life between the offending and trial, and the fact he was entering prison for the first time at an advanced age. It said this was a generous allowance given the limited remorse and acceptance described in the probation report. The court said the complainant had been required to give evidence and relive her experiences, while also stating that an accused must not be punished for pleading not guilty.
The court found no evidential basis to suspend any part of the sentence. It ordered nine years’ imprisonment on each of the five counts, to run concurrently and to be backdated to the date J.M. first entered prison for the offending.