The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review a four-year sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault in Dundalk. The sentence, which was suspended for three years, will stand.
The court found that the original sentencing judge had made an error of principle by treating the victim’s acceptance of €15,000 compensation as leading to a non-custodial sentence. It said compensation can be considered alongside other sentencing factors, but does not in itself rule out imprisonment. The victim’s role should be limited to accepting or refusing an offer, the court said; deciding sentence is a matter for the court.
The respondent had pleaded guilty in June 2004 to an assault at a 24-hour shop in Dundalk in September 2002. The judgment said he entered the shop several times before pushing the shop assistant into a storage area, telling her he wanted sex and claiming he had a knife. She resisted, and the attack ended when another person entered. The court noted there was no penetration. The victim impact reports described severe trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder.
At sentencing in October 2004, the Central Criminal Court imposed four years’ imprisonment, suspended on a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years. The judge also directed that the respondent be registered as a sex offender. The compensation had been offered and accepted before sentence was imposed.
The DPP argued that the victim should not have been drawn into the sentencing process and that compensation should not prevent a custodial sentence. The respondent’s counsel argued that the sentence should remain, citing his early guilty plea, remorse, lack of previous convictions, rehabilitation prospects, abstinence from alcohol, the compensation payment and the delay before the review.
The appeal court agreed that the sentencing approach was mistaken and reconsidered what sentence was appropriate, giving credit for the €15,000 payment. It described the circumstances as exceptional, citing the respondent’s prompt confession, apology, good character, rehabilitation prospects and the consequences of the case. It also noted that he had been led to believe a non-custodial sentence would follow and that the victim had freely accepted the compensation.
Despite finding an error in principle, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate in these circumstances and refused the DPP’s application. It did not replace or increase the sentence.