The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence by J.C., upholding a 10-year prison term with the final two years suspended for 10 counts of indecent assault and three counts of sexual assault.
The judgment, delivered on 18 March 2016 by Mr Justice Sheehan, concerned sentence only. J.C. had been convicted after a six-day jury trial at Limerick Circuit Criminal Court on 7 February 2013 and sentenced on 3 May that year. The court said the offending involved J.C. getting the injured parties to touch his penis and, in most cases, to masturbate him. It referred readers to a separate judgment on his appeal against conviction for further detail.
For J.C., counsel argued that the offences were towards the lower end of seriousness and that the sentencing judge had given inadequate weight to his personal circumstances and mitigating factors. These included his previous good character, age and family circumstances, loss of contact with his children, and no further Garda attention after the allegations. Counsel also argued that suspending part of the sentence had effectively imposed an eight-year term, and that post-release supervision had not been considered.
The prosecution submitted that the offending belonged at the high end of the scale. It cited the complainants’ young ages, abuse of trust by a family member, the duration of the offending and harm described by victims. Counsel said one complainant was aged three or four on the first occasion and five on the second; the other complainants were aged between six and 10 when first abused. The prosecution also referred to reported agoraphobia affecting J.C.’s daughter and a victim’s hospital admission for anorexia attributed to the abuse.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that individual acts, considered in isolation, would not normally attract a sentence at the high end. It said the number of offences and the harm caused required a high-end sentence. The court noted J.C.’s good work history and lack of previous convictions, and said a guilty plea would have brought significant further mitigation. It also recorded that he had maintained his innocence, which was not an aggravating factor.
The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to approach the case as he did and that the overall sentence was proportionate in light of J.C.’s circumstances and the aggravating factors. It dismissed the sentence appeal. The judgment does not reconsider the convictions.