Judgment: 2020-03-05 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to sentence for 2001 sexual assault

The court found no error of principle in the sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, with the final four months suspended.

Court of Appeal; appeal from Dublin Circuit Criminal Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Complainant
What

The court found no error of principle in the sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, with the final four months suspended.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Clondalkin
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2020, Mr Justice McCarthy said the Circuit Court judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and was right to place the offence in the mid-range for cases of this kind. The appeal court found no error of principle and said the sentence was within the range available to the trial judge. It dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a sentence imposed on a man convicted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl at his home in Clondalkin in August 2001.

The appellant was convicted after a trial on 13 May 2019. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him on 19 June 2019 to two years and six months’ imprisonment, with the final four months suspended. The offence was sexual assault under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990.

In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2020, Mr Justice McCarthy said the Circuit Court judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and was right to place the offence in the mid-range for cases of this kind. The appeal court found no error of principle and said the sentence was within the range available to the trial judge. It dismissed the appeal.

The judgment said the girl was staying overnight at the appellant’s home for the first time as a babysitter for his grandchild. She was sharing a bed with the child when the appellant entered the room, tried to kiss her and put his hand inside her pyjama bottoms, touching her vagina. The court described the assault as brief and non-penetrative. It said the appellant apologised later that morning and, at a subsequent meeting with the complainant and her mother, said he loved her.

The court identified the complainant’s age, the intimate touching inside her clothing and the breach of trust as aggravating factors. The families were close, and the complainant had regarded the appellant as being like an uncle. A victim impact report described depression and anxiety, counselling and psychiatric care, and a lasting effect on her relationship with her partner.

The appeal submissions cited the brief, single nature of the assault, the absence of grooming or premeditation, delay before prosecution, the appellant’s previous good character, his later apology, long-term alcohol addiction and health difficulties. The judgment records that the case proceeded on the basis that the offence was a once-off event; police enquiries had not uncovered material relating to an earlier report said to have been made at the time.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review