No error in sentence for sexual assault

McCarthy J: Criminal law – appeal dismissed against severity of sentence previously – judgment to set out reasons for the dismissal of that appeal – three separate incidents, involving three unrelated injured parties – because of consecutive elements involved, the total period of imprisonment was set at 22.5 years with the final four years suspended upon conditions – appellant convicted of three counts of false imprisonment, three counts of assault causing harm, two counts of sexual assault and one count of possession of an article intended to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate – in addition to the physical injuries, the offences left the victims with psychological injuries – the offences left one victim in shock and trauma, difficulty sleeping – another victim suffers from extreme anxiety and has become progressively worse leading to isolation as well as sleep disturbance – the third victim suffered flashbacks as well as having her sleep pattern adversely affected and also had to change her living arrangements and suffered significant financial loss – there was mitigation and testimonials submitted on behalf of the appellant – a probation report was prepared which the judge was not bound to accept and it seems she didn’t accept it – sentencing judge noted that the sentence must be proportionate to the offences and the personal circumstances and character of the accused – sentencing judge said that she had to address the gravity of the offences by reference to the culpability of the appellant and the harm done to each victim – totality principle must guide sentencing where multiple offending is at issue – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in fixing a headline sentence which was excessive and unduly severe – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to have sufficient regard for the mitigating circumstances in the case – whether sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in failing to have regard for the conduct of the appellant at trial and in particular that the cross-examination of each of the complainants was conducted sensitively – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in failing to have any or sufficient regard for the risk assessment of the Probation Services in relation to the Appellant – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in failing to have sufficient regard for the totality principle – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in imposing consecutive sentences – viewing the sentencing judgment as a whole, there was no error made – sentencing judge’s reference to guilty plea, absence of remorse and any proposal for rehabilitation was not referenced as aggravating but rather as relevant to deciding on the sentences as a whole – sentencing judge did not fall into any error of principle in fixing headline sentence – judge was entitled to exercise her powers to the full – the totality of the circumstances of each offence must be addressed by the judge in sentencing and she did so – condition that appellant be screened for and participate in a sex offender programme by the prison, probation and psychology services is discharged – appeal dismissed.