The Court of Appeal reduced a man’s sentence for sexual assault to two and a half years’ imprisonment, suspended the final six months, and ordered him to stay away from the injured party for four years.
The court also imposed one year of post-release supervision. It said the appellant would be subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for ten years.
The appeal concerned a sentence imposed in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 13 January 2020 after the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on 3 July 2020, found the original sentence excessive and resentenced him. It set a four-year headline sentence before mitigation, then reduced it to two and a half years, with the final six months suspended on the usual terms.
The offence occurred in April 2018 in an apartment in the Parkgate Street area of Dublin where the appellant and the injured party lived. The judgment said she had returned from socialising, had consumed alcohol and fallen asleep on a couch. The sentencing hearing proceeded on the basis that the assault involved digital vaginal and anal penetration.
The court noted that the appellant had initially apologised in messages to the injured party. Later, in a prepared statement to Gardaí, he accepted sexual activity had occurred but said it was consensual and initiated by her. The Court of Appeal said that account undermined the weight of his earlier admissions and apology.
The appellant argued that the five-year headline sentence set by the sentencing judge was too high, that sentencing should have been adjourned for probation or psychological reports, and that part of the sentence should have been suspended. The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments about reports and partial suspension, finding the sentencing judge was entitled to proceed and to decide that a suspended element was neither necessary nor appropriate.
In reducing the sentence, the appeal court acknowledged the seriousness of the assault, which involved a sleeping victim in her own home, and considered the sentence imposed markedly different from broadly similar cases. It also cited the early guilty plea, positive testimonials and other mitigation. The original judge had imposed two and a half years’ imprisonment; the Court of Appeal retained that term but suspended its final six months.