The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence by a man identified as G.N., who was found guilty of nine counts of sexual assault against his younger sister, identified as DN. The court upheld the effective eight-year prison term imposed in April 2022.
The offences were alleged to have occurred between 2010 and 2016, when the appellant was aged between 18 and 25 and DN was aged between 10 and 16. A jury found him guilty unanimously on counts three to nine and by an 11:1 majority on counts one and two. He denied the allegations in Garda interviews.
The appellant challenged the admission of evidence describing his conduct towards DN over the period of the offences. The Court of Appeal said the evidence gave context to the nine charged incidents and that excluding it would have denied the jury a complete picture. It rejected that ground.
He also argued that a statement from his brother, JN, should not have been admitted under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. JN did not answer questions at trial, and the appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine him. The statement described sexualised comments and conduct JN said he had witnessed. The court held that, in the context of the other evidence and the appellant’s denials, the statement was necessary. It dismissed the challenge and the appeal against conviction.
On sentence, the appellant argued that consecutive sentences were unjustified and that the trial judge had not adequately applied mitigation. The trial judge had identified a nine-year pre-mitigation effective sentence, citing the duration of the offending and the cumulative pattern, then reduced it by one year under the totality principle. The Court of Appeal considered the offending’s duration and the complainant’s age made consecutive sentencing permissible. It said mitigation was limited, noting there was no plea, remorse or acceptance of the jury’s verdict, and that the absence of previous convictions had limited significance in the circumstances.
The court concluded that the effective eight-year term, with lesser concurrent sentences, was within the available range and not excessive. It dismissed the sentence appeal.