DPP v S.A.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Birmingham P.
• Judgment Date: 26 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IECA 348
• Docket Number: [279/2017]]
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 26 October 2018

[2018] IECA 348

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham P.

The President

Whelan J.

Baker J.

[279/2017]]

BETWEEN

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

AND

S.A.

APPELLANT

Crime & sentencing – Sexual offences – Buggery and sexual assault of child– Appeal against severity of sentence

Facts: The appellant had been convicted of offences of sexual assault and buggery of his nephew, when the complainant was aged between 15 and 17 years old. He now appealed against the severity of his sentence.

Held by the Court that the appeal would be dismissed. The fact that the Court or individual judges would have sentenced the appellant slightly differently at first instance was not sufficient to justify an intervention by the Court. In this instance, the sentencing judge had approached the matter with care and the sentence was within the range available to her.

JUDGMENT (Ex tempore) of the Court delivered on the 26th day of October 2018 by Birmingham P.

1 This is an appeal against severity of sentence.

2 The sentences under appeal were imposed on 15th December 2017 in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. On that occasion, sentences of nine years' imprisonment, but with the final 18 months suspended, were imposed in respect of a number of counts of sexual assault. At the same time, concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment were imposed in respect of offences of buggery.

3 The background to the case is to be found in the fact that the appellant is the Uncle, and indeed, Godfather, of the complainant who was born in January 1989. The Court was dealing with offending that occurred between January 2004 and January 2006. The injured party was 15 years of age when the offending began and it ended when he turned 17 years. At the time of the offending, the accused was between 32 and 33 years old. The offending was very frequent and involved oral sex and anal penetration. In a situation where the anal penetration offences were charged as offences of buggery and gave rise to concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment, the focus on this appeal has been on the sexual assault offences where the longer sentences were imposed, the sexual assault offences involving, as they did, oral sex. It was also the case that the appellant would record the sexual activity that took place on his mobile phone.

4 In terms of the background and personal circumstances of the appellant, he was born in August 1973. He was 44 years old at the time of the sentence hearing and he had a good and varied work record involving, among other things, working in an off-licence and in the security industry. The Court heard that he had experienced difficulty with alcohol over the years and the Court was also told that he himself had been the victim of similar conduct as a child. He was involved in the care of...