Judgment: 2015-11-16 · Court archive

Five-year sentences upheld for man who sexually abused stepdaughter over five years

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • O. O’B. (Appellant)
  • S
What

Five-year sentences upheld for man who sexually abused stepdaughter over five years

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Court of Appeal has upheld five-year concurrent prison sentences imposed on O. O’B. for sexually abusing his stepdaughter over a period of about five years while acting as her parent.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six sample counts taken from a 21-count indictment covering three-month periods between January 2002 and March 2007. The case was presented on a full-facts basis. The injured party, S, was born in 1995 and believed throughout the abuse that O. O’B. was her biological father.

The abuse came to light in June 2011 when S disclosed it to a friend while visiting her grandmother. Family members confronted the appellant. Three days later he went voluntarily to a Garda station and said he wanted to confess to sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He declined legal advice and made admissions in recorded interviews.

S subsequently described substantially more extensive offending. The sentencing court heard that the abuse occurred regularly, sometimes two or three times a week, and included sexual touching, simulated intercourse, oral contact, masturbation and photographing her naked. It occurred mainly in family homes, but also in a car and other settings.

A victim impact statement recorded psychological and practical consequences. S was stressed and underweight, had difficulty sleeping and concentrating, suffered nightmares and low self-esteem, and had difficulties with physical relationships. Following the disclosures, she also moved house twice and changed school once.

The appellant relied on his early cooperation, guilty pleas, previous good character and engagement with the One in Four Phoenix Programme. He argued that insufficient weight had been given to those factors.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. While it said the sentencing judge should ideally have identified the pre-mitigation starting point more explicitly, the detailed judgment showed that all significant mitigating factors had been considered and substantial credit given. The five-year concurrent sentences were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review