The Court of Appeal has corrected individual sentences imposed on a man convicted of sexual offences against four complainants, after finding that the sentencing judge had been given the wrong maximum penalty for offences involving one complainant. It left the overall sentence at 13 years, with the final 12 months suspended, and varied the suspension conditions.
The appeal concerned sentence only. The man had been convicted of 11 counts of indecent assault and seven counts of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 26 November 2020, records that the offences took place between 1984 and 1993. Three complainants were related; the fourth was a childhood friend. The judgment describes the complainants as teenagers during most of the offending, and says the fourth was in her early twenties. Their statements to gardaí were made in 2016.
The appellant argued that the trial judge gave too much weight to aggravating factors and too little to mitigation, including his previous good character, work history, health and the time since the offences. He also argued that the judge had not adequately applied the totality principle when setting consecutive terms. The prosecution said the judge had considered the mitigation and repeatedly applied that principle.
The appeal court found an error affecting sentences on counts 25 and 33–37. The sentencing judge had been told the maximum penalty was 14 years, when the applicable maximum was five years. The appeal court substituted sentences of two and a half years on count 25 and four years on each of counts 33–37. Those terms run concurrently with one another and consecutively as directed by the sentencing judge.
The court rejected the other challenges. It said the judge had identified the mitigating factors, including the appellant’s good character and lack of Garda attention after 1993, and was entitled to conclude that there were no substantial mitigating factors. It also found the judge’s reduction for totality—from an indicative 18 years and eight months to 13 years, with one year suspended—was “exceedingly generous”. The court was not persuaded that the overall 12-year custodial term was wrong.
The appeal court clarified that the final year suspended applies to the overall sentence, identifying the final year of the sentence on count 49 for that purpose. It removed a requirement that the appellant take courses while in custody. The suspended 12 months were made subject to the usual mandatory condition and a condition that he stay away from the complainants in perpetuity, with a bond to be entered before the prison governor or assistant governor.