The Court of Appeal upheld an appellant’s convictions for 22 counts of sexual assault but reduced his effective eight-year prison sentence to six years, suspending the final 12 months subject to conditions including participation in a sex offenders programme.
In a judgment delivered on 11 February 2015, the court rejected challenges to the joint trial, the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury, an amendment to the indictment’s dates and the absence of a warning about evidence from children. It dismissed the appeal against conviction and affirmed the convictions.
The appeal focused in particular on whether the indictment should have been severed because it involved four complainants. The court said their accounts had striking similarities in how contact was arranged, the use of computer games and the alleged assaults. It concluded that a joint trial was appropriate and that separating the cases would have deprived the jury of the full picture.
The court also rejected the argument that remarks by one complainant required the jury to be discharged. It said the comments were not elicited by the prosecution and added nothing material to the case. An amendment to one count concerned only the date of the alleged offence, which the court said was not critical in the circumstances. The court further held that the witnesses were adults when they testified and that concerns about their recollection of events from the past were addressed through a delay warning.
The appellant had been found guilty in February 2013 and sentenced the following month. The trial judge imposed consecutive terms structured around the four complainants, producing an effective sentence of eight years. The Court of Appeal accepted that consecutive sentences were within the trial judge’s discretion given the seriousness of the offences, the young ages of the complainants at the time and the court’s consideration of grooming and breach of trust.
However, it found that the aggregate sentence was out of line with sentences in comparable cases and identified an error in principle. It set aside the Circuit Court sentences and substituted shorter terms while retaining the original structure. The resulting effective sentence was six years. The final 12 months were suspended on condition that the appellant seek and participate in the prison system’s Better Lives Programme, complete it satisfactorily and enter a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the remaining custody and after release.