The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on a father convicted of 60 sexual assaults and 14 rapes against his daughter, committed when she was aged between nine and 14.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 7 December 2017, found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s approach and said it could not interfere with the sentence. The appeal against conviction was not before it: an application to extend time to appeal the conviction had previously been refused, while an extension was granted for the sentence appeal.
The Central Criminal Court convicted the man on 25 March 2011. On 26 May that year, it imposed 10 years for each sexual assault count and 15 years for each rape count, with the sentences running concurrently. The final three years were suspended, subject to a €1,000 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years, and a condition that he have no contact with the victim in perpetuity. The sentence was backdated to the date of conviction.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment recounted that the offences took place in the family home and increased in frequency over time, progressing from touching and digital penetration to rape. The victim disclosed the abuse to her mother after writing a note saying she would leave home. A victim impact statement described the effects on her studies and relationships, and the distress of receiving messages from the appellant during the first trial.
The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and that his age, previous good character, work history and contribution as a sports coach had not been given adequate weight. He also argued that the sentence offered insufficient opportunity for rehabilitation. The prosecution submitted that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the harm, the appellant’s culpability and his personal circumstances.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had considered the breach of trust, the victim’s age, the impact of the offences, their frequency and duration, their predatory nature, the absence of genuine remorse and pre-trial communications with the victim and her mother. It also found that the judge had considered mitigation, including the appellant’s age, lack of previous convictions and work and sporting activities, and had suspended the final three years accordingly.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge had identified a 15-year headline sentence and applied the available mitigation. It dismissed the appeal.