[2026] IECA 92

THE COURT OF APPEAL Neutral Citation: [2026] IECA 92 Record Number: 253/2023 Edwards J. Kennedy J. Burns J. BETWEEN/ THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT - AND - LT APPELLANT JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 21st day of April, 2026 by Ms. Justice Tara Burns.

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty on a full facts basis to two counts of aggravated sexual assault contrary to s.3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act
2. Whilst a trial date had been assigned in respect of this matter, the guilty plea was entered approximately 5 months in advance of that date.
3. On 23 October 2023, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 19 years in respect of each count. Post Release Supervision for a 10 year period was also imposed. In arriving at this sentence, the sentencing judge identified a headline sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment which she reduced by 3 years to reflect the mitigatory factors present in the case. Background
4. On 19 March 2022 the victim was socialising with friends in her local town. She became separated from them at a late stage of the evening and decided to go home at approximately 1am. She was unsuccessful in procuring a taxi, so she commenced walking in the direction of home with the intention of getting a taxi on the way out of town. The appellant pulled up in his car alongside the victim and indicated that he was a taximan. The victim got into his vehicle.
5. CCTV footage subsequently acquired revealed that the appellant had been tracking the victim, who was unsteady on her feet, in his car since she left the last premises she had frequented that night. He passed her on the road at least 7 times in the space of 23 minutes by circling the town initially and then slowly driving up and down past the victim as she began her walk out of town. The CCTV footage established the vehicle registration of the vehicle which was to prove useful in terms of the subsequent identification of the appellant.
6. Initially, the appellant proceeded driving towards the location as directed by the victim, however he then did not take a necessary turn. The victim became concerned and protested to the appellant who replied that they would get back on track. Instead, the car was driven to a secluded area.
7. The appellant got out of the vehicle, came around the passenger side of the car and pulled the victim out of the car. The victim pleaded with the appellant “Please don’t do this. Please don’t do this”. The appellant then violently raped the victim both vaginally and anally against the bonnet of his car. Throughout, the victim was screaming and crying. Once finished with her, the appellant left the victim in the secluded area. Subsequently, a taximan came upon the victim and brought her home.
8. The victim made a complaint to the guards later that day. When examined in the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit, the victim was noted to have bruising to her body and lacerations and bruising to her genital area. Due to the extent of her injuries, an internal examination could not be conducted. Subsequent forensic analysis of semen found in her mons pubis demonstrated a match to the appellant’s DNA.
9. The appellant was identified as the driver of the car very quickly after the incident and was arrested and detained for the purpose of interview. He accepted that he gave the victim a lift, but suggested that she had propositioned him and offered him money for sexual acts. He denied any penetrative intercourse had occurred.
10. A very detailed victim impact report was provided by the victim which explained the devastating impact the offending has had on her. Unsurprisingly, her life is quite simply shattered. Personal Circumstances of the Appellant
11. The appellant, who is a Romanian national, was 38 years of age at the time of the offending. He is married with two children. He has one previous conviction for sexual assault of a minor which occurred in Spain in
12. He received a 20 year term of imprisonment for that offence. He was transferred to Romania in May 2010 to serve the remainder of the sentence. The details of the previous offending were described by the Spanish authorities and Interpol as follows:“The subject approached a young woman at dawn who was knocked unconscious by a blow from behind. Later he put her in a van and took her to an isolated place where he raped her after the victim tried to flee.”
13. Whilst the appellant penned a letter of apology to the victim, he included a statement that “this is completely out of character”. This, of course, does not equate with the very serious previous offending outlined above.
14. A probation report prepared in respect of the appellant noted that whilst the appellant expressed regret for his sexual offending, this was in the context of possible consequences for his future and that of his family. The report further noted that he “lacked sympathy for his victim and offered minimal insight with regard to the short/longterm effects and impact of his violent actions upon this woman”. In addition, the appellant would not engage in discussion with the probation officer concerning his motivation for this sexual offending. Sentencing Judge’s Determination
15. The sentencing judge identified the aggravating and mitigating factors as follows:“Aggravating features: The brutality of the sexual assaults in an isolated area with a vulnerable woman cannot be overlooked. To be ferried away by what is believed to be a genuine taxi driver to an out of the way location, and physically assaulted and abused in a way that occurred in this instance is every woman’s nightmare. Then to be cast aside and left to seek her own help and assistance adds to the trauma, dehumanisation and humiliation of [the victim] in this series of events. Her victim impact report clearly sets out the cascading series of effects such brutal attacks cause as a result of the criminal acts committed in this case. [The appellant] has a previous conviction for sexual offending, which led to a 20-year sentence. While the circumstances of that crime are not fully clear, the imposition of a 20-year sentence i[n] itself signifies serious crimes committed by him on another woman. It is also of concern that while in discussions with the probation service, he struggled to offer an explanation for his behaviour on the date in question. Mitigatory features: The primary mitigation in this case … are the pleas of guilty. While under arrest, [the appellant] said it was [the victim] who instigated the sexual activity and propositioned him. And the plea of guilty was entered some five months before the trial date; and in itself is some comfort to [the victim]. The work he has done in prison is also to his credit, as are his engagement … with the probation service. I note that in the probation report before the Court, [the appellant] falls in the medium category for long-term sexual conviction, and in the low category for nonsexual violence reconviction. [The appellant] has expressed a willingness to pursue a therapeutic programme to address aspects of the sexual offending, and this is to his credit.” Grounds of Appeal
16. The appellant indicated his desire to appeal the severity of his sentence on the following grounds:
17. “The learned sentencing Judge erred in identifying an appropriate ‘headline’ sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment;
18. In imposing a sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment, the learned sentencing Judge failed to give adequate and appropriate weight to the mitigating factors in the case, namely: a. the plea of guilty b. the Appellant’s genuine expression of remorse; and c. the willingness on the part of the Appellant to engage in a prison-based therapeutic programme to address any future risk of reoffending.
19. In all the circumstances, the sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment is excessive and disproportionate.” The Parties Submissions
20. The appellant submitted that the identification of a headline sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment fell outside the margin of discretion of the sentencing judge. It was further submitted that the reduction of 3 years failed to appropriately reflect the mitigatory factors identified by the sentencing judge, in particular the plea of guilty in this case. In addition, it was submitted that significant weight, erroneously, was placed on the appellant’s previous conviction in circumstances where it was acknowledged that the particulars of the previous offending was not clear.
21. The respondent submitted the identification of a headline sentence of 22 years and the reduction of 3 years to reflect mitigatory factors did not reflect an error in principle. While the reduction of 3 years was less of a reduction than a guilty plea at this stage before a trial might attract, this reduction fell within the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion particularly having regard to the level of remorse evidenced by the appellant. Discussion and Determination Headline Sentence
22. The offending in this matter was of the most serious kind having regard to the nature of the acts perpetrated on the victim and the manner in which they were carried out. The victim was identified by the appellant as an easy target, in light of her intoxicated state and the fact that she was unaccompanied. He carefully watched and followed her before tricking her into his car. He then brought her to an isolated location where he carried out violent and aggressive vaginal and anal rapes while she screamed and cried throughout. The injuries sustained by the victim were such that she could not submit to an internal examination. This was planned, carefully executed and brutal offending where a vulnerable, isolated woman was targeted, hunted down, and deceptively brought to a location with the sole intention of perpetrating grievous sexual acts on her. In terms of sexual offending, it falls within the highest level of seriousness.
23. The offending was aggravated by the appellant’s previous conviction for similar type offending, as already detailed. Whilst the appellant asserts that there was a lack of detail regarding the previous conviction, the only lack of detail relates to the appellant’s early release from prison when repatriated to Romania in respect of which the appellant provides a reason to the probation officer. The previous similar offending was correctly assessed as a serious aggravating feature by the sentencing judge.
24. Further, the harm suffered by the victim and the effect that this has had and continues to have on her everyday wellbeing is extreme and is an additional aggravating factor.
25. Accordingly, we are of the view that the identification of a 22 year headline sentence is not an error in principle having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. Mitigation
26. The appellant asserts that too little of a reduction was provided for mitigation, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty to the offences on a full facts basis prior to the trial date. The reduction provided for mitigation amounts to 14% of the headline sentence identified. The appellant submits that a reduction in the region of 20% was more appropriate and that the level of reduction afforded amounts to an error in principle.
27. DPP v. Faulkner [2024] IESC 16 sets out guidelines with respect to assessing the value of a plea of guilty and the factors to be taken into account in that analysis. Charleton J. (delivering the judgment of Supreme Court) stated at para. 45 of his judgment:“Circumstances will vary. Definitive indications within an area where the law is being applied sensibly is based on two simple premises, those of timing and circumstance. To those fundamentals will often be added complication. Experience demonstrates that perhaps one-third discount may apply where there is an early indication and the circumstances are such as to enable a real choice on the part of the offender. Later pleas of guilty, perhaps when the foreign witness is demonstrated to have travelled from abroad to take part in the trial, or perhaps after a victim has given evidence, will be deserving of a lesser mitigation; The People (DPP) v McDonnell [2022] IECA
28. No clear or hard rules are either discernible or necessary. The pattern seems to indicate a variable, based on timing and circumstance, from a potential 33% to perhaps as low as 10%; The People (DPP) v Molloy [2016] IECA 239, The People (DPP) v Whelan [2018] IECA 142, The People (DPP) v Cambridge [2019] IECA 133, The People (DPP) v TD [2021] IECA
29. While pursuant to the 1999 Act, a plea of guilty does not nullify the authority of the sentencing judge to impose a maximum sentence, ordinarily a plea of guilty will have some value, in the context of the heavy burden of proof born by the prosecution and the need to marshal perhaps reluctant or worried witness and to establish accurate testimony; The People (DPP) v Howlin [2022] IECA 150.”
30. The value of a guilty plea is well recognised. In a case involving sexual charges it means that a victim does not have to give evidence and re-live the events at issue; she/he does not have to undergo cross-examination and have her/his evidence tested; the uncertainty of mounting a successful prosecution is alleviated; and the resources of the State, to include scarce court time, are freed up. As acknowledged in Faulkner, the earlier a plea of guilty is entered, the more credit may be given for this. However, the value of a plea of guilty, even in circumstances where it has been entered early, can vary. In circumstances where very strong evidence exists against an offender, the value of a plea of guilty may not be as high. In addition, the reason for a plea of guilty can be important. A plea of guilty may not reflect remorse on the part of an offender at all but rather may be a practical acceptance of the strength of the case against him. All of these issues are matters for the sentencing judge to assess when determining the value of the guilty plea. Ultimately, the aim of a sentencing judge is to impose a proportionate sentence.
31. In the instant matter, the case against the appellant was extremely strong. The appellant had accepted he was the driver of the car into which the victim had gotten into prior to the incident; the appellant’s semen was found in her vulval area; and the victim had extensive injuries in her genital area which corresponded with vaginal and anal penetration.
32. Viewed in the context of this very strong case, the extent of the value of the guilty plea is lessened. In addition, the appellant apologised to the victim on a false basis, claiming that this conduct was out of character, when this clearly was not the case in light of his earlier conviction and lengthy sentence for conduct of a similar nature. Furthermore, apart from the absence of insight on the appellant’s part into the effect of the offending on the victim, the appellant also refused to discuss the reason for his offending with the probation officer.
33. In these circumstances, it was open to the sentencing judge to assess the value of the guilty plea at a level which was not as generous as might usually be the case.
34. Having regard to the particular circumstances surrounding the plea of guilty in this case, we are of the opinion that marking a 3 year reduction (14%) from the headline sentence, fell within the discretion of the trial judge and does not amount to an error in principle.
35. We further are of the view that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to suspend any portion of the sentence having regard to the evidence before her with respect to rehabilitation. Whilst the appellant indicated a willingness to engage in rehabilitative courses in prison, he neither wished to discuss the reason for his offending with his probation officer, nor had he any insight into the victim’s suffering. Accordingly, the sentencing judge did not err in determining not to suspend a portion of the sentence in light of the evidence before her. Conclusion
36. In circumstances where we have not upheld any of the grounds of appeal relating to the sentence imposed, we hereby dismiss the appeal against sentence. Approved No Redaction Needed