The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence imposed on D. M. for defilement of a child under 15, finding that the original nine-year headline sentence overestimated the gravity of the offence. It set a five-year sentence, with the final year suspended for one year after release under specified conditions. The sentence runs concurrently with the sentence for child exploitation.
D. M. had pleaded guilty to defilement and three child exploitation offences. At the time, he was 19 and the complainant was 14; she was 13 during the exploitation offences. The offences occurred over about five months from December 2011 to May 2012 and involved sexualised communications through Facebook, Skype and text messages. The court said D. M. knew her age and personal vulnerabilities. The pair met once, in a public park, where he digitally penetrated her after she asked him to stop and said it hurt; he stopped. He also attempted to initiate oral sex but stopped immediately.
The Central Criminal Court imposed six and a half years for defilement and five years for exploitation, to run concurrently. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the nine-year headline sentence for defilement was too high and placed the offence in the mid-range. It set a headline sentence of seven and a half years, then reduced that to five years to account for mitigation, including D. M.’s work and personal history, lack of prior convictions and guilty plea. The court agreed the plea was not early, but said it merited some mitigation given the distress a trial could have caused the complainant.
The appeal court also addressed the use of victim impact evidence. It said such evidence helps assess harm and must be considered, but does not receive special weight simply because a victim gives evidence under section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The court considered the sentencing judge’s remarks capable of suggesting an error of principle, while allowing that he may have expressed himself imprecisely. It said the complainant’s apparent acquiescence could not reduce D. M.’s culpability because she was legally unable to consent and the apparent consent followed manipulation.
The court left the five-year exploitation sentence undisturbed, finding no error of principle. It said the repeated sexualised communications and the complainant’s age placed those offences in the mid-range, despite the absence of recording, dissemination, commercial use or degradation.
One year of the defilement sentence was suspended for one year after release. The suspension is conditional on D. M. entering a €100 bond, submitting to Probation Service supervision, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour.