The Court of Appeal has dismissed T.P.’s appeal against the severity of an effective 10-year prison sentence for historic sexual offences against a younger first cousin.
The sentence comprised four years followed by six years consecutively. It was imposed in the Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin on 6 November 2019, after T.P. was convicted following a contested trial. His separate appeal against conviction had already been dismissed. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 28 January 2022.
The offending spanned 1 April 1984 to 1 January 1990 at T.P.’s home in Donegal, which was also the home of the injured party’s grandmother. The injured party was about six when the abuse began. The court said the conduct covered a wide range of sexual behaviour and took place during regular weekend and school-holiday visits. The cousins shared a bed during those visits. The injured party’s victim impact statement described significant effects on his life.
The sentencing judge treated the offences as falling into two periods. For counts 6 to 15, she set six-year headline sentences and described the offences as in the upper midrange. For counts 16 to 29, she set eight-year headline sentences and placed them in the upper range. She took account of the fact that T.P. was a child during some of the earlier offences and a child or young man throughout the offending. She also considered his lack of previous convictions, later career and family life, business achievements, testimonials and positive activities in prison.
On appeal, T.P. argued that consecutive sentences were not justified because the offences involved one complainant and formed a continuous course of offending. He also argued that the headline sentences were too high and that the combined sentence should have been reduced, including by suspending part of it. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that consecutive terms were open to the sentencing judge given the seriousness of the offending.
The Court of Appeal said the offending was of exceptional seriousness. It held that its duration justified considering consecutive sentences and that separating offences committed before and after T.P. reached adulthood was a logical starting point. The court accepted the sentencing judge’s distinction between the earlier and later offences and found no basis to fault the headline sentences or the ultimate terms.
The appeal court noted that the sentencing judge had not expressly reconsidered whether the 10-year aggregate sentence needed adjustment under the totality principle. It nevertheless concluded that no reduction was required or warranted given the grave nature of the offending. It dismissed the sentence appeal.