The Court of Appeal has found that the sentence imposed on A.W. for four oral rape offences against a boy in foster care was unduly lenient, but said it would be unjust to send him back to prison after his release.
The judgment, delivered on 10 July 2023, arose from a prosecution appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. A.W. had been convicted after a second trial of counts 1–8 and 10–17. The jury disagreed on count 9, a sexual assault allegation, and a nolle prosequi was later entered on that count.
The oral rape offences concerned MS, who was 11 to 14 during offending from May 1995 to December 1998. A.W. was 15 to 18, and continued offending against MS for nine months after turning 18. Separate sexual assault offences concerned MS’s brother, TJS, who was 12 to 13 during offending between summer 1995 and December 1996. The brothers and their younger brother had been placed in foster care with A.W.’s parents. The court described them as vulnerable children and A.W. as occupying a position of trust.
In March 2022, the sentencing judge imposed four years for the oral rape counts and 18 months for each group of sexual assault counts, with the sentences concurrent. The final two years and six months were suspended, leaving an effective prison term of 18 months. A.W. was released in December 2022 after remission.
The Court of Appeal said the original four-year headline sentence for the oral rape offences was substantially below the appropriate level. It pointed to the seriousness and duration of the offending, the grooming of MS, the position of trust, the involvement of two complainants and the period of offending after A.W. became an adult. It also held that the reduction for mitigation was excessive. A.W.’s acceptance of the verdict and remorse came only after two trials, warranting very limited credit; the court also considered his circumstances and the prosecution delay.
The court set a six-year headline sentence for the oral rape offences, taking account of A.W.’s age and maturity during much of the offending, as well as the nine months after he turned 18. It then assessed mitigation as meriting a two-year reduction. But because A.W. had been released for six months and was attempting to reintegrate, the court said returning him to prison would be additional punishment and unjust.
The court resentenced him to four years on the oral rape counts and 18 months on the sexual assault counts, with the sentences concurrent. It suspended the remainder of the term to be served for two and a half years, subject to a €100 bond, probation supervision and conditions including offence-focused work. The court did not find the sexual assault sentences unduly lenient and did not interfere with them. A.W. remains subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for the period required by law.