Court of Appeal: Man unsuccessfully appeals sentence for sexual assault on child

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IECA 93
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Tara Burns

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal, Ms Justice Tara Burns explained: “While the appellant sought to rely on his age at the time of the offending and his limited intellectual capacity as outlined in the psychologist’s report, the fact of the matter is that the appellant was an adult when these offences were committed and had a realisation that this activity was wrong in light of the furtive manner in which the offending was conducted.”

Background

Between 2009 – 2014, the appellant perpetrated sexual assaults on his first cousin who had moved into the appellant’s family home due to difficult family circumstances. When the offending commenced, the victim was eight years old and the appellant was 19 years old.

The offending ceased when the victim complained to her aunt about the abuse, leading the appellant to apologise to the victim, having been confronted by his mother. The appellant was arrested and detained for questioning, but denied any wrongdoing. At trial, both the appellant and his mother denied the confrontation and apology.

Following a three week trial before the Central Criminal Court, the appellant was found guilty of 17 counts of sexual assault contrary to s.2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.

The appellant was 34 at the time of sentencing, and was married with a young child. He had no previous convictions and had a good work history.

A psychological report prepared for the purposes of the sentence hearing noted that the appellant had in reality continued to maintain his innocence for a period after the jury verdict and indicated that he had fought the case as he did not think that there was enough evidence to convict him.

The report concluded that the appellant was on the borderline range of intellectual functioning, lacked insight into his behaviour and was at a “level II Below Average risk” of future sexual re-offending.

On 14 October 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, with the final 12 months suspended on condition that he engage with the probation service. At the sentence hearing, the appellant accepted the verdict and offered an apology to the victim.

The sentencing judge identified as aggravating factors the type of offending, the furtive and planned nature of the offending, the length of time over which the offending occurred, the age disparity between the accused and the victim, the breach of trust by the accused and the particular vulnerability of the victim, who had come to live with the accused after being in foster care.

The court acknowledged that the appellant had no previous convictions, a reasonable work record, good references and his “very late” admission of guilt following his conviction, as mitigating factors.

Having considered that the offending placed the sentence close to the top of the scale for sexual assaults on a child, the court identified a headline sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 11 years to reflect mitigatory factors.

Grounds of Appeal

The appellant appealed the severity of his sentence on grounds that a 10 year custodial sentence was unduly harsh and disproportionate, that the judge erred in determining that the offences were the highest culpable category, erred in failing to properly assess his mitigating factors and failed to give adequate regard to the appellant’s circumstances, relatively young age at the time of offending and his mental/intellectual issues.

The Court of Appeal

Observing that the sentence was pronounced prior to the delivery of the guideline judgment on sexual assault offending in DPP v. GN [2025] IECA 254, the Court of Appeal considered that such offending in the upper range of seriousness attracts 9-14 years’ imprisonment where offending relates to a child under 17.

Ms Justice Burns considered that the offending in the case before the court displayed many of the features described in GN, such as a young and vulnerable victim, subjected to persistent offending of a serious kind, a significant violation of trust and very significant harm to the victim, which was ongoing.

The judge explained that “While intimidation, grooming and threats did not feature in the offending, GN establishes that it is not necessary for such matters to be established for offending to fall within the upper range of seriousness.”

The court noted that although counsel for the appellant initially sought to argue that the appellant’s moral culpability was reduced in light of his age and low-level intellectual functioning, it had been accepted during the course of the hearing that in light of the psychological report, those matters were more properly to be considered as mitigating factors.

Having regard to GN, the Court of Appeal opined that the sentencing court did not err in placing the offending at the upper range of seriousness and that the identification of a 12-year custodial term was appropriate.

As to the contention that the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to the mitigatory factors in the case, Ms Justice Burns highlighted that the sentencing judge reduced the headline sentence by one year and suspended the final year thereof to encourage rehabilitation in light of the mitigatory factors.

The judge also pointed out that “The significant reduction which the appellant could have availed of had there been an acceptance of his guilt before the trial had commenced was not available to the appellant.”

As to the contention that the appellant was relatively young at the time of the offences and had limited intellectual capacity, the court emphasised that the appellant was an adult at the time of the offences and must have had a realisation that the activity was wrong in light of the manner in which the offending was conducted.

In the circumstances, the court was satisfied that adequate regard had been given to the limited mitigatory factors in the case.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

DPP v TQ [2026] IECA 93