The Court of Appeal upheld the length of a 14-year sentence imposed on SA for raping and sexually assaulting two sisters, but changed the terms attached to its suspended portion and ordered additional supervision after release.
SA was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on 2 April 2018, following a 42-day trial, of three counts of rape and 20 counts of sexual assault. The offences against CE and JE took place between 3 December 2010 and 10 March 2011, when they were children. On appeal, the court considered the sentence imposed in June 2018: 14 years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended, and concurrent five-year sentences for the sexual-assault counts.
The appeal judges said the sentencing judge was wrong to treat an aspect of the trial as aggravating: the defence had suggested in cross-examination that CE fabricated allegations and conspired with JE. The Court of Appeal stressed that an accused’s decision to contest a case, including the manner of doing so, should not add time to a sentence, subject to the trial judge’s power to prevent irrelevant or vexatious questioning. It found the error was not substantial enough to justify changing the sentence’s length.
The court rejected the other challenges to the sentence. It considered the offending very grave, citing the repeated abuse of two vulnerable children, SA’s position of trust and influence, and the exploitation of their circumstances. It found the sentencing judge had properly considered the available mitigation and that the 14-year headline sentence and two-year suspension were proportionate.
The original order made suspension conditional on SA participating in the Better Lives Programme for Sexual Offenders and signing a €100 bond. The appeal court said the programme required cooperation and an acknowledgement of sexual wrongdoing, which SA had not made, and that the law did not permit this precondition to suspension. It removed the programme requirement and suspended the final two years on the condition that SA sign a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during imprisonment and for two years after release.
The court also ordered two years of probation supervision, including compliance with directions that may require programme attendance, and no contact with the complainants in perpetuity. It directed four years of post-release supervision, requiring SA to comply with probation directions, provide his address and give seven days’ notice of an address change.