The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v Daniel Ramamoorthy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 21 April 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IECA 60
• Docket Number: Record No: 101/2025

Between/

The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Respondent

and

Daniel Ramamoorthy

Appellant

[2026] IECA 60

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

Burns J.

Record No: 101/2025

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – Sexual exploitation of a child – Severity of sentence – Appellant appealing against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe

Facts: The appellant, Mr Ramamoorthy, came before the Dublin Circuit Court in respect of Bill No. 890/2022. He applied successfully to sever the indictment, and as a result Bill No. 890A/2022 was generated. The appellant entered a plea of guilty on 29 April 2024 to the offence contained in Bill No. 890/2022, being possession of child pornography contrary to s. 6(1) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. Bill No. 890A/2022 contained an offence of sexual exploitation of a child contrary to s. 3(2)(a) of the 1998 Act. The appellant was found guilty of that offence by a jury on 13 February 2025. On 24 March 2025, the judge passed sentence ordering that the appellant serve a sentence of two years and four months imprisonment on Bill No. 890A/2022, and a concurrent sentence of one year and six months imprisonment on Bill No. 890/2022. By a Notice of Appeal lodged on 17 April 2025, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court. In support of the application the appellant advanced three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in fact and/or in law in giving excessive weight to the aggravating features and/or in arriving at a headline sentence that was excessive in all the circumstances; (2) the trial judge erred in fact and/or in law in failing to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors; and (3) the trial judge erred in law and/or in principle in imposing a sentence which was excessive and disproportionate in the particular circumstances arising.

Held by the Court that, having considered the sentence imposed for the offence of sexual exploitation of a child, the headline sentence of three years was within the sentencing judge’s legitimate margin of discretion, albeit perhaps at the upper end of it. The Court found no error of principle in the setting of the headline sentence. The Court considered that the discount of eight months from the headline sentence of three years afforded by the sentencing judge was sufficient on the evidence, and found no error of principle in that regard. The Court rejected the submissions on behalf of the appellant that inadequate consideration was given by the trial judge to suspending all or part of the sentence in the interests of rehabilitation; there was no evidential foundation provided on foot of which the sentencing judge could justifiably have suspended all or part of the sentence on that account. Turning to the sentence on the charge of possession of child pornography, the Court held that while the headline sentence nominated was perhaps towards the severe end of the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion, she nonetheless acted within her legitimate range of discretion; there was no error of principle. The Court held that there was no foundation for a partial suspension of the post-mitigation sentence, and the sentencing judge would not have been justified in going further than she did. The Court found no error of principle in her discounting for mitigating factors or in not suspending the sentence either in whole or in part.

The Court dismissed the appeals against severity of the sentences on both bills.

Appeals dismissed.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 21 ^st day of April, 2026 .

Introduction

1 . This is an appeal brought by Mr. Daniel Ramamoorthy (i.e., “the appellant”) against the severity of the sentence imposed on him by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 24 ^th of March 2025.

2 . The appellant came before the Dublin Circuit Court in respect of Bill No. 890/2022. The appellant applied successfully to sever the indictment, and as a result a second Bill No. was generated, namely Bill No. 890A/2022.

3 . The appellant entered a plea of guilty on the 29 ^th of April 2024 to the offence contained in Bill No. 890/2022, being possession of child pornography contrary to s. 6(1) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, as amended by s. 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

4 . Bill No. 890A/2022 contained an offence of sexual exploitation of a child contrary to s. 3(2)(a) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, as amended by s. 6 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2007 and by s. 3 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008. The appellant was found guilty of this offence by a jury on the 13 ^th of February 2025.

5 . On the 24 ^th of March 2025, the judge in the Court below passed sentence ordering that the appellant serves a sentence of two years and four months imprisonment on Bill No. 890A/2022, and a concurrent sentence of one year and six months imprisonment on Bill No. 890/2022.

Factual Background

6 . At the sentencing hearing of the 3 ^rd of March 2025, the Court heard evidence from a Detective Inspector White in respect of the appellant's offending.

Bill No. 890A/2022

7 . The complainant had a date of birth of the 1 ^st of December 2003, and he was 13 years of age at the time of the offending.

8 . The complainant attended a Scripture Union Easter camp, organised by a Christian Organisation in County Wicklow, and he returned home on the 6 ^th of April 2018. Upon returning home, he disclosed to his sister that an adult volunteer group leader had inappropriately communicated with him. An Garda Síochána were contacted and the complainant took part in a specialist interview on the 12 ^th of April 2018.

9 . At trial, this interview was put before the jury in the form of a video played pursuant to s. 16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.

10 . In the course of this interview, the complainant stated that there was a leader at the Scripture Union Easter camp who was very friendly, and that he had given the children at the camp his social media details, namely his Instagram and Snapchat details, when asked. The complainant named the appellant as this leader.

11 . The complainant described a Snapchat conversation he had had with the appellant, where the appellant invited him to play Truth or Dare. The complainant described that during this game the appellant asked him “ how big is your dick?” before requesting him to send a photograph of his penis. He also described that during this game, the appellant sent him a photograph of his pubic region, with his pubic hair showing and facing downwards.

12 . The complainant further stated that during this game the appellant disclosed to him that he was addicted to pornography.

Bill No. 890/2022

13 . An Garda Síochána subsequently obtained a search warrant for the appellant's home which was executed on the 17 ^th of July 2018. A mobile phone and an Acer laptop were seized. This laptop was submitted for analysis to the Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau, which yielded three images and one video which were deemed to constitute child pornography.

14 . A Detective Garda Cullen outlined that the three images related to the same male, who in his view was between 9-11 years of age. The images depicted this child masturbating or performing sexual acts on an unknown male's erect penis. The video found on the appellant's laptop showed two males who appeared to be between 10-13 years of age engaging in masturbation and oral sex upon each other.

15 . D/Garda Cullen gave evidence that these images and video were in an area of the hard disk of the laptop that would not be viewable by a user without specialist forensic software to access. He stated that they would have been deleted, but since it was not yet written over by new data on the hard drive, it was still recoverable by specialists.

16 . The appellant was arrested on the 10 ^th of December 2019, on which occasion he was interviewed several times and nothing of evidential value arose.

Victim Impact Statement

17 . In relation to the offence on Bill No. 890A/2022, the complainant prepared a victim impact statement which D/Inspector White read into evidence at the sentencing hearing.

18 . Under a heading, “Psychological or Psychiatric Effects and Treatment”, the complainant stated:

“ I have a lack of trust. I have found the entire process stressful, and I've had to relive the events through two trials, which has added to the anxiety. These trials also affected my ability to move on with my life. The first trial coincided with exams that I had and I could not sit. This meant that I had to take re-sits, but this of course denied me the ability to take a further re-sit, adding to the stress of the exams many months after the trial. For the most recent trial, I returned to Ireland from New York and as part of my course, I was to travel to Australia for an internship as part of my course work. I've had to delay this internship and remain in Ireland for the trial again. Again, I was moving my life around to facilitate. The trial itself was also very stressful when the defence, who were doing their job, attempted to discredit me in claiming that my account was a lie and the whole thing did not happen. To have to re-live this twice was very stressful.”

19 . In addition, under a heading, “Life Changes”, the complainant stated:

“ Since I disclosed what happened to my sister, I've had many sleepless nights thinking of what could have happened if I had've engaged further and provided the requested pictures. I am more suspicious of people's motivations now, and I find it difficult to trust role models and mentors, both in my personal life, in sport and in my professional life.”

20 . Further, under a heading “Additional Information” the complainant stated:

“ I have no...