The Court of Appeal has re-sentenced a man who pleaded guilty to sexual offences against his daughter, raising the headline sentence for each rape and section 4 rape count from 16 to 22 years.
The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by setting a headline sentence that was too low for the gravity and depravity of the offending. It quashed the original sentence and re-sentenced the respondent on 13 October 2022.
The respondent pleaded guilty on a representative basis to offences including indecent assault, rape, sexual assault, section 4 rape and aggravated sexual assault, as well as a sexual offence committed outside the State. The indictment contained 54 counts relating to offending over 16 years, from 1990 to 2006, when the injured party was aged between six or seven and 25. One further count of a sexual offence committed outside the State was discontinued by nolle prosequi; the remaining counts were taken into consideration.
The judgment described repeated sexual abuse beginning when the injured party was a young child and escalating over time. The Court of Appeal highlighted evidence of grooming, violence, humiliation and control, as well as the respondent’s use of a dictaphone and the taking of graphic photographs. It said the abuse continued through the injured party’s childhood, adolescence and young adulthood and involved a profound breach of trust.
The sentencing judge had set headline terms of 16 years for rape, 10 years for aggravated sexual assault and seven years for indecent and sexual assault. After mitigation, the rape terms were reduced to 12 years, the aggravated sexual assault term to eight years and the other terms to five and a half years, all concurrent. The judge suspended the final 18 months of each sentence to encourage rehabilitation.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that both the headline sentence and the reductions for mitigation were too lenient, citing the prolonged offending and the late guilty plea. The respondent argued that the judge’s sentence fell within the available discretion and relied on the plea and personal mitigation.
The appeal court held that the headline term was the error in principle. It said the reduction for mitigation, though generous given the late plea and the respondent’s earlier change of position, remained within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation.
On re-sentencing, the court set a 22-year headline sentence for each rape and section 4 rape count, then reduced it to 17 years to reflect mitigation. The sentences on the remaining counts stayed as imposed below, but their suspended elements were removed. All sentences were concurrent under the original sentencing order, which the appeal court did not alter in that respect.
The court also imposed five years of post-release supervision, including requirements to provide address details to the Probation Service, follow its directions, have no unsupervised access to or contact with children under 18, and have no direct or indirect contact with the injured party. The respondent remains subject to the sex offenders register.