← Ireland

[2026] IECA 87

THE COURT OF APPEAL APPROVED JUDGMENT [2026] IECA 87 Record Number: 165CJA/2025 Kennedy J. Meenan J Owens J. IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 BETWEEN/ THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT/ - AND - M.G. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT of the Court delivered (ex tempore) on the 17th day of April 2026 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

  1. This is an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to the provisions of s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, seeking a review of sentence on grounds of undue leniency.
  2. The respondent pleaded guilty to 1 count of sexual assault contrary to s.2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended, and 1 count of coercive control contrary to s.39 of the Domestic Violence Act
  3. The respondent was sentenced to 3 years and 2 months imprisonment for the sexual assault count (count 4), and 2 years and 6 months for the coercive control count (count 5), with 2 further counts of sexual assault taken into consideration. The sentences were imposed concurrently. Background
  4. Evidence was adduced of the relationship between the respondent and the injured party which began in 2017 and was marked by instability and allegations of infidelity on the respondent’s part. In January 2019, the couple moved in together and a period of systematic coercive control commenced. The respondent became increasingly violent towards her and refused to leave the house when asked. She was granted a safety order in September
  6. The respondent exercised dominance through constant surveillance, forcing the injured party to send photos to prove her location and ringing her friends to track her movements. He would take her car keys and use his van to block her car from leaving the house and visiting her family, and on one occasion he moved a couch into a shed to secretly watch her activities. The respondent psychologically abused her, called her derogatory names and convinced her that her suspicions of his infidelity were “all in her head”, and that she was a “psychopath”. He used her phone to send fake suicide messages to others to make her appear mentally unstable and he posted photographs of their children on social media against her wishes, stating that he would take down the photographs if she let him see the children.
  7. In relation to the sexual assault incidents, the court heard that on the 28th of March 2021, the respondent got into bed beside the injured party, grabbed her lower back and buttocks and tried to kiss her, placing his hands inside her clothing and pulling her underwear to one side in an attempt to digitally penetrate her. During this assault, the respondent subjected the injured party to verbal degradation, telling her that she was “not worth raping” and that she was “riddled with disease”. The incident ultimately ended when their young son intervened by hitting the accused in the chest.
  8. On another occasion, the respondent pinned the injured party against a couch and began to rub her legs and buttocks whilst attempting to forcefully kiss her on the mouth. In order to stop the injured party from resisting, the respondent squeezed and twisted her arms, holding them above her head, and further restricting her movements by kneeling across her legs. The respondent threw the injured party across the couch, causing her to strike her head against the wall. The respondent then walked over to the kitchen pretending to be on the phone with the gardaí saying that she assaulted him.
  9. Another incident involved the respondent pinning the injured party down, forcing his hand inside her underwear and on her vagina. The assault ended when their son intervened by hitting the respondent on the back. Personal Circumstances of the Respondent
  10. The respondent was 28 years of age at the time of sentencing. He has two young children with the injured party, as well a child with a woman with whom he was in a relationship at the time of sentencing. He has 9 previous convictions; two s. 2 assaults, one s.3 assault, entering a building with intent to commit an offence under Public Order Act, and a conviction for making threats to kill or cause serious harm.
  11. The respondent had a difficult background which was marked by emotional and psychological issues arising from his childhood. He has a strong work history, and a probation report was adduced to the court which outlined that the respondent had begun to reflect on his behaviour during his time in custody, and that he was willing to engage in a therapeutic programme. Sentencing Remarks
  12. In relation to the sexual assault count, the judge placed the offending in the mid range, identifying a headline sentence of 4 years. She acknowledged that she had to take account of the cumulative effect of all three incidents. In relation to the coercive control count, she placed the offending in the upper section of the mid range, nominating a headline sentence of 3 years and four months.
  13. In terms of mitigation, the judge referred to the plea; the remorse expressed; the apology; and the character reference which depicted the respondent as a very sociable and dependable person, a diligent worker and a present father. She accordingly reduced the headline sentences for both counts by 20%, backdating the sentences to when the respondent was remanded in custody. She imposed 12-month post-release supervision, requiring compliance and engagement with the Probation Service. Grounds

(1)The learned sentencing Judge erred in her nomination of a headline sentence in respect of the sentence imposed on Count No. 4 (Sexual Assault). In particular, the nominated headline failed to adequately reflect and take account of the sexual assaults committed in respect of Count No. 2 and Count No.3.
(2)The learned sentencing Judge erred in her nomination of a headline sentence in respect of the sentence imposed on Count No. 5 (Coercive Control). In particular, the headline failed to adequately reflect the aggravating features of the offending, the harm caused to the victim and the trauma suffered.
(3)The learned sentencing Judge erred in affording undue and excessive reductions for the mitigating factors in the case.
(4)The learned sentencing Judge erred in failing to attach adequate weight to the aggravating factors in the case.
(5)The learned sentencing Judge erred in failing to have adequate regard to the principle of deterrence, both in general terms and in this specific case. Submissions of the Director
  1. The Director submits that the nomination of a headline sentence of 4 years in respect of the sexual assault count did not properly reflect the gravity of the offending and the fact that the offending comprised three incidents. It is said that the headline nominated for the coercive control count did not reflect the prolonged nature of the offending and the impact on the victim.
  2. The Director takes issue with the imposition of sentences on a concurrent basis and refers to People (DPP) v Crowley [2021] IECA 178 and People (DPP) v Faulker [2024] IESC 16 where at para 15 Charleton J. said:- “Appropriate totality, ensuring that the final sentence for two or more offences, whether concurrent or consecutive, is appropriate to the overall offending should be borne in mind…”
  3. It is submitted that the judge afforded excessive reduction for the mitigating factors particularly as the respondent came before the court with an extensive history of violent offending and that the respondent did not enter the guilty plea until the morning of the trial. The Director argues that the 20% reduction afforded by the judge was excessive in these circumstances.
  4. Finally, it is submitted that the judge failed to have sufficient regard to deterrence in imposing sentence. The Director refers, inter alia, to the decision of this Court in People (DPP) v Taylor [2017] IECA 143, where it was held that deterrence, both specific and general, is a legitimate factor in sentencing. Submissions of the Respondent
  5. The respondent argues that the judge adopted a structured approach when nominating the headline sentence for both counts and had due regard to the culpability of the respondent and the harm he inflicted.
  6. In relation to totality, the respondent also refers to Crowley in that the overall sentence must be proportionate to the entirety of the offending. It is submitted that the judge in the instant case adhered to this principle. It is argued that all the sexual offending was reflected in the headline sentence identified, and it would have been wrong for the judge to impose a further penalty for the same conduct by imposing consecutive sentences.
  7. It is said that the judge emphasised the domestic setting and breach of safety in the home, as well as the fact that their children were present and on occasion witnessed the events. It is noted that the judge summarised the overall pattern of the coercive control as “menacing, insidious, intimating behaviours that were systematic and pervasive in nature to control and dominate [the injured party] over the course of the relationship”. She also explicitly referenced the number of incidents and their frequency as being part of her calculation for the headline sentence.
  8. The respondent submits that the mitigation advanced on behalf of the respondent was significant.
  9. Regarding deterrence, it is said that sentencing is not confined to punitive considerations alone; that deterrence and retribution must be balanced with the prospect of rehabilitation where the evidence supports it, and that in the instant case, the probation report was instructive in this regard.
  10. The respondent notes that the sentencing judge correctly balanced the issue of rehabilitation through the imposition of twelve months of post release supervision which requires the respondent to engage with the Probation Service. Discussion
  11. The principles for determining undue leniency reviews are well established, commencing with the People (DPP) v Byrne [1995] 1 ILRM 279 and in People (DPP) v Stronge [2011] IECCA 79, McKechnie J synopsised the applicable principles.
  12. We commence our consideration in the knowledge that the onus is on the Director to establish that the sentence was unduly lenient so that the divergence between the sentence imposed and that which ought to have been imposed amounted to an error of principle before this Court may justifiably intervene. The sentence imposed must be demonstrated to constitute a substantial departure from the norm.
  13. The headline identified in each instance is criticised by the Director as not meeting the gravity of the offending with reference to the respondent’s culpability and the harm done.
  14. There is no doubt that the sentencing judge took conspicuous care in assessing the entirety of the evidence and approached sentencing in a most detailed manner, properly identifying the aggravating and the mitigating factors, with the exception of pointing to s.40 of the Domestic Violence Act
  16. We look first to the headline sentence nominated on the sexual assault count and in so doing, we consider the gravity of the offending. In this Court’s view, this was offending of a serious order. Whilst certainly there are sexual assaults which of themselves are more serious in terms of the actual nature of the assaults and the activity involved, but what renders this case serious is that not only were there three counts which serve to elevate the gravity of the offending, but the actions of the respondent in committing the sexual assaults were very disturbing.
  17. In that respect, it is quite clear from the evidence that despite the victim’s resistance, both physical and verbal, the respondent persisted in his actions. He was forceful in the manner of his unwanted attentions on her. He pinned her down and restricted her movements. He did so on occasion in the presence of their children. In one instance he compelled her son to strike her as part of some type of nasty game, it seems in order to give the impression that there was nothing amiss. He used vile insults. The actions in sexually assaulting her were not only sexual in nature but also designed to bully and intimidate and undermine her. It must also be recalled that s.40 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 applies which serves to aggravate this offending. This was not highlighted to the sentencing judge. These are the associated factors which render these offences serious.
  18. Insofar as the coercive control count is concerned, we again look to the aggravating factors and to the headline nominated by the judge. This conduct continued for a prolonged period where the respondent maintained surveillance on the victim. The nature of his efforts to control her were sinister and pervasive. He threatened to hang her dog, he placed the children’s images on social media against her wishes and indicated to her that he would only take them down if she allowed him to see the children, he insisted in accompanying her when she sought a safety order, he set up surveillance in a shed so he could monitor her. His conduct was manipulative in the extreme, he deleted her messages from her phone and then used her phone to send messages of suicidal ideation purportedly from her to her family. Her home was constantly violated by him, throwing stones, and generally making noise when she would not allow him in, he broke locks and windows. His behaviour in our view constituted conduct of the utmost gravity with the consequential impact on the victim.
  19. There are situations, as in the instance of s.3 assault offences, where courts have been reluctant to nominate the maximum sentence for offences. However, in People (DPP) v McGrath, Dolan and Brazil [2020] IECA 50, this Court found at para 24:“[J]udges should not operate on the basis that a starting point of five years is not generally available and that it should only be considered, if it be ever considered, in exceptional circumstances.”
  20. As in the instance of s.3 assaults, offending for coercive control may cover a broad range of offending and in this case, we consider the nature of the respondent’s activity to be grave indeed and at the top end in terms of gravity.
  21. On a consideration of the aggravating factors on the sexual assault offence, to include but not limited to the fact that the headline requires to be elevated given that 2 counts were taken into consideration, that the offences were committed within a domestic setting and that s.40 of the 2018 Act applies, we are satisfied that the judge fell into error and that the headline sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offending and that the ultimate sentence is a substantial departure from the norm.
  22. We conclude on the coercive control count that the judge erred in the nomination of the headline sentence on a consideration of the aggravating factors. The conduct of the respondent over a prolonged period was designed to instil fear and to subjugate his victim, he destroyed her peace of mind and his conduct was extremely manipulative.
  23. Consequently, the ultimate sentence in each instance constitutes a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence, and the Director has established that it is unduly lenient. We will quash the sentences imposed and proceed to re-sentence as of today’s date. Re-sentence
  24. We sentence the respondent de novo as of today’s date. Insofar as the sexual assault count is concerned we consider the appropriate headline sentence to be that of 5 years and six months. Regarding the coercive control count, we consider that this falls at the absolute upper end of gravity. The maximum penalty available is that of 5 years and we nominate 5 years as the appropriate headline. His behaviour was designed to subjugate his victim, placed her in fear and had a significant impact on her.
  25. The plea of guilty was entered on the date of trial, and so constitutes a late plea of guilty, we recognised that a plea is nonetheless valuable, but of course the weight to be given to a late plea is considerably less in those circumstances. We recognise the presence of the additional factors in mitigation as identified by the sentencing judge. He has engaged with the probation services, expressed remorse and offered an apology. However, his previous convictions lead to a progressive loss of mitigation. We will reduce the headline sentence on the sexual assault counts to that of 4 years and 6 months and on the coercive control count to that of 4 years. The sentences are imposed concurrently.
  26. We will impose 3 years post release supervision on the same conditions as in the court below.

🔗 To official source

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.