The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against an eight-year net custodial sentence imposed on a man convicted of six counts of indecent assault.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered on 20 March 2018 by Mr Justice Mahon, with Ms Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Hedigan also on the court. The appellant, identified as J.M., had been sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 2 October 2017. The appeal court said the total custodial term ran from that date.
The offences were said to have occurred between 1 January 1980 and 31 March 1984. The two victims, identified as K.F. and R.F., were the appellant’s nephews and were approximately eight to 12 years old at the time. The judgment described the assaults as including penetrative and oral sex. The victims’ impact statements described lasting effects on their lives.
The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate, that the sentencing judge had imposed repeated consecutive terms without properly applying the totality principle, and that mitigating circumstances and his personal circumstances had not been given adequate weight. He had no previous convictions, pleaded guilty at an early stage and was 64 when the appeal was heard. His counsel also argued that the sentencing judge should have identified a headline sentence before applying mitigation.
The Court of Appeal said consecutive sentencing was generally the exception, but could be used in sexual abuse cases involving multiple victims, particularly where sentencing ranges were restricted. It described the offending as serious, premeditated, systematic and prolonged, and referred to its long-term consequences for the victims. The sentencing judge’s remarks had identified the victims’ age and vulnerability, the abuse of trust, grooming and planning as aggravating factors. Mitigating factors recorded included the guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, employment record, remorse and the age of the offences.
The appeal court said the custodial range reasonably open to the sentencing judge was probably six to nine years. The eight-year term was within that range, although at its higher end, and did not involve an error of principle. It therefore dismissed the appeal and did not alter the sentence.