The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to three sexual offences against a 14-year-old girl.
The court said the two-year prison sentences, one for each offence and running concurrently, were “a very lenient” outcome. But it found they were within the sentencing judge’s discretion and not unduly lenient. Each sentence had been suspended in full for two years, subject to conditions including keeping the peace, being of good behaviour and having no contact with the victim.
The offences occurred on 4 December 2018 at an isolated seaside location on Ireland’s south coast. The respondent, then 19, had arranged to meet the girl, collected her from a nearby village and drove her to the location. In his parked car, he kissed and fondled her, digitally penetrated her and placed her hand on his penis. He asked her to have sexual intercourse; she declined, and intercourse did not take place. The judgment records that he stopped immediately when she said she was uncomfortable with that prospect. DNA evidence from semen found on the girl’s clothing and leg matched the respondent.
The sentencing court heard that the offences had a profound psychological impact on the girl, affecting her sleep, eating, schoolwork and sense of safety. She said she had avoided going outside for almost a year because she feared seeing the respondent. She later attended a 12-week counselling programme.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offences, the respondent’s prior knowledge of the girl’s age and his departure for England after the offences. The respondent’s lawyers relied on his age, guilty pleas, cooperation after arrest, difficult adolescence, lack of previous convictions and subsequent employment. They also argued the evidence did not establish grooming or premeditation.
The Court of Appeal said a sentence review required more than disagreement with the original sentence: the sentence had to represent a substantial departure from the appropriate range. It accepted that the age difference and breach of trust were aggravating circumstances. It also said the respondent’s decision not to press for intercourse was relevant context, though not mitigation in the strict sense, when assessing whether the conduct amounted to targeted sexual predation.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge’s reasons were rational and supported by the evidence, and that a wholly suspended sentence could reasonably be imposed in the circumstances. The application was dismissed. The judgment records an order prohibiting disclosure of the respondent’s identity to protect the victim’s identity.