Judgment: 2016-11-21 · Court archive

Appeal court replaces wholly suspended sentence with nine months’ custody for sexual assault

The Court of Appeal ruled that a three-year sentence suspended in full was unduly lenient and ordered the respondent to serve the final nine months.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The Court of Appeal ruled that a three-year sentence suspended in full was unduly lenient and ordered the respondent to serve the final nine months.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Cavan
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Court of Appeal has replaced a wholly suspended sentence for sexual assault with a three-year prison term, suspending all but the final nine months. The ruling followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, alleging that the original sentence was unduly lenient.

The respondent had pleaded guilty in Cavan Circuit Criminal Court to one count of sexual assault. He was initially sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended in full for four years, on entering a €500 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The offence occurred in the early hours of 24 June 2012 at a hotel in Cavan. The court’s judgment said the complainant, identified as S.P., was unconscious on a foyer couch after drinking. CCTV footage described at the sentencing hearing showed the respondent repeatedly approaching her, moving her legs and raising her dress. He admitted touching her upper thigh in a police interview but denied touching her vagina. He later pleaded guilty to the sexual assault charge.

The DPP argued that the sentencing judge wrongly placed the offence at the low end of the seriousness scale, failed to give sufficient weight to the complainant’s vulnerable state and the respondent’s repeated returns to her, and gave excessive weight to mitigating factors. The judgment records that the complainant provided a victim impact statement describing distress and lasting effects, including fear, isolation and difficulties with alcohol.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentencing judge had misjudged the offence’s seriousness by concluding that a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate. It accepted the original three-year term as a suitable headline sentence, but ruled that at least part of it had to be served. The court quashed the original sentence and resentenced the respondent.

In setting the custodial portion at nine months, the court took account of the respondent’s guilty plea and lack of relevant previous convictions. It also said that time had passed since the original non-custodial sentence, making the prospect of immediate custody more difficult, and described the new sentence as lower than it would have imposed at first instance. The court ordered that the remaining two years and three months be suspended, subject to a €500 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years from 21 November 2016.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review