The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a three-year prison sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to three of 10 sexual assault charges involving his stepdaughter.
The appellant pleaded guilty on a full-facts basis to counts 1, 5 and 10. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment on counts 1 and 10, to run consecutively, and took count 5 into account. The result was an effective three-year term. The sentencing judge had identified three years as the headline sentence for each of counts 1 and 10 before applying mitigation.
The Court of Appeal judgment says the assaults took place at the family home on 10 occasions over seven years, from March 1991 to March 1998, when the child was aged between six and 13. The appellant had been in her life since she was three. The appeal concerned whether the consecutive element was appropriate, given the delay, the appellant’s admissions and co-operation, his guilty plea, rehabilitation and personal circumstances.
The sentencing judge considered the appellant’s guilty plea, co-operation, counselling, lack of previous convictions, work history, remorse and the passage of time. She did not accept that the case involved blameworthy prosecutorial delay, but said she would take the interval into account. The judge also heard about the serious impact on the victim described in her impact report.
The appeal court reviewed the principles governing concurrent and consecutive sentences. It noted that consecutive terms are exercised sparingly and that concurrent sentences are ordinarily appropriate for offences arising from the same incident. It said the case was different from repeated offending against one victim within a relatively short period: the assaults here extended across seven years.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge was entitled to mark the seriousness and duration of the offending with consecutive sentences and had given a reasonable explanation for doing so. It said she had reduced the three-year headline sentence to 18 months on each count to reflect mitigation, amounting to a 50 per cent reduction. The court found no error in principle and dismissed the appeal. The original sentence therefore stands.