The Court of Appeal has dismissed J.L.’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for sexual assaults against two nieces, leaving a combined custodial term of five and a half years in place.
J.L. had pleaded guilty to two counts on one indictment and two counts on another. The first concerned 19 counts of sexual assault against one niece when she was between four and seven. The court described touching, digital penetration and exposure, as well as an attempted rape recalled by the child. J.L. entered an early guilty plea to that offending.
The second indictment contained 15 counts involving another niece, aged between eight and 11. The conduct included touching, one instance of digital penetration and making the child kiss him. J.L. pleaded guilty on the morning of the trial, after a jury had been sworn.
In December 2022, the sentencing court imposed five years’ imprisonment on the first indictment. On the second, it imposed seven and a half years, suspending the final two years. The sentences left an effective custodial term of five and a half years.
J.L. argued that the sentences failed to give adequate weight to his guilty pleas, lack of previous convictions, personal circumstances and intellectual difficulties, including the greater difficulty he might face in prison. He also argued that the sentencing judge had not identified headline sentences or explained the mitigation allowed, and that the five-year term on the first indictment was the maximum available despite the guilty plea.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors and was entitled to impose sentences reflecting the number and gravity of the offences, the breach of trust, the children’s ages and the impact on them.
The Court of Appeal accepted that J.L.’s intellectual functioning was at a very low level and said a person with his difficulties may have diminished moral culpability. It was not persuaded, however, that the sentencing judge had erred. The judge had referred to those difficulties, and the appellate court concluded that the overall sentence was less than would have been imposed on a fully functioning adult.
On the first indictment, the appeal court said the five-year term was imposed globally to reflect numerous counts and prolonged, frequent offending. Although the sentencing judge had not expressly stated that exceptional circumstances justified the maximum, the appeal court found it apparent that the term punished the cumulative offending. It found no error in that approach.
The appeal court also noted that the guilty plea on the second indictment came after the jury was sworn, reducing the weight due to it. The two-year suspension was intended to assist rehabilitation. Finding the combined custodial term not disproportionate in light of the offending and mitigation, the court dismissed all grounds of appeal. It did not alter the sentences.