The Court of Appeal has quashed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, suspended in full, imposed on Gregory Lordan for possessing child pornography. On a review application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the court re-sentenced him to three years, suspending the final two years. The order leaves a one-year custodial element. The suspension remains subject to the Circuit Court’s terms, and sex-offender registration continues to apply.
The judgment, delivered on 14 May 2019, says gardaí encountered Lordan on 16 February 2017 as they went to his house to execute a search warrant. He was returning from work, admitted having an old mobile phone containing the material and said he had accessed it the previous day. He cooperated with the search and handed over the phone, which was found in his bedroom.
The phone contained 1,027 images, according to the judgment. These included 638 depicting child nudity, 386 depicting children engaged in sexual activity with adults or other children, and three depicting a child engaged in sexual activity with an animal. The court said Lordan had accessed material over two years.
The Director argued that the sentencing judge had not given proper regard to the offence’s gravity, the number and nature of the images, the period over which they were accessed, and the need for general deterrence. The Director accepted that a three-year sentence was appropriate; the appeal concerned its full suspension.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered mitigating circumstances, including Lordan’s guilty plea and cooperation, his work history and family support, his early exposure to pornography in an abusive context, social anxiety and psychotherapy. It also noted that he had no previous convictions. The court nevertheless concluded that the seriousness of the images and the importance of deterrence meant a wholly non-custodial sentence was inappropriate. It found the high threshold for intervention in a sentence review had been met and quashed the original sentence.
In setting the new sentence, the court retained the three-year term but required a custodial element, suspending the final two years. It said it had also taken account of the greater difficulty of bearing a sentence imposed on review after the original sentencing. The judgment does not set out the Circuit Court’s suspension terms; it says those same terms continue to apply.