The Court of Appeal has dismissed K.C.’s appeals against the severity of sentences imposed for sexual offences against his younger brother and his stepbrother. It found no error of principle in either sentence.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 2 November 2016. For 56 counts of indecent assault against his younger brother, identified as DC, K.C. received a nine-year sentence consecutive to a nine-year sentence already imposed for offences against his sister. The final four years of the combined 18-year term were suspended, leaving 14 years to be served, subject to the suspension conditions.
The offences against DC occurred between 1980 and 1985, when he was aged nine to 14 and K.C. was aged 18 to 23. The Court of Appeal described repeated assaults, including three instances of anal penetration. K.C. had been convicted by a jury.
For 22 sexual assault counts against his stepbrother, identified as CM, K.C. received an aggregate 11-year sentence, with the final two years suspended. The counts covered offending before and after changes to the maximum penalties in 2001. The sentences were structured in two groups and ordered to run consecutively between those groups. The 11-year term runs concurrently with, and is practically subsumed by, the longer sentence. K.C. had pleaded guilty to the counts.
K.C. argued that the sentences were disproportionate, that insufficient weight was given to his personal circumstances and mitigation, and that the sentencing judge had not adequately applied the totality principle. In relation to CM, he also challenged the use of consecutive sentences and the credit given for his guilty pleas. The prosecution argued that the sentences reflected the seriousness and duration of the offending and had been carefully considered.
The appeal court said the nine-year headline sentence for the offences against DC was appropriate. It found that the combined reduction, which included both mitigation and an adjustment for totality, fell within the sentencing judge’s discretion. It also held that the guilty plea discount in the CM case was not generous but was within the acceptable range. Although the sentencing judge had not stated her reason for consecutive sentences on that indictment, the appeal court inferred that the structure was intended to reflect the duration and extent of the offending. It considered the resulting sentence near the outer limit of proportionality, but not beyond it.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It did not resentence K.C. or change the terms imposed by the Circuit Court.