Sentence for sexual assault was not excessive or disproportionate

McCarthy J: Criminal Law – appeal against severity of sentence – guilty plea to one count of sexual assault – appellant pleaded guilty to a further twenty-two counts of sexual assault against the same plaintiff on the sentence date – remaining thirty one counts were taken into consideration – offences occurred over a period of 13 years – cumulative sentence ultimately imposed was one of twelve and a half years imprisonment with final four years suspended – offences began when complainant was a child and continued until she had entered into college studies – appellant was married to a maternal aunt of the complainant – familial relationship allow the appellant frequent access alone with the complainant – complainant concerned about appellant’s behaviour at a quite early stage – complainant asked a nun about what to happens in a case where one does not want to do what adults are asking, she was told that adults always know best and one should always respect them – complainant was confused by this and had a gut feeling that was being done to her was wrong – complainant felt her parents would not believe her – complainant would be sexually assaulted in appellant’s car, kitchen, bathroom, tool shed and the complainant’s own home – appellant told complainant that the reason he did these things was because her aunt was on medication and had no interest – prolonged sexual abuse and grooming has had enormous implications in appellant’s life – complainant provided a lengthy and detailed account of the traumatic and long-term effects that this ordeal has had on her - sentencing judge took into account the seriousness and prolonged nature of the offending and importance of the principle of deterrence – whether the sentence imposed was excessive and disproportionate – whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in failing to properly balance the sentences objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation – whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in failing to have proper regard to the totality principle when imposing consecutive sentences – whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in imposing a sentence which was disproportionate, overly punitive and inconsistent with the sentences for comparable offences of this nature – individual comparators are to be distinguished from cases where the Court has sought to set down general guidelines – no basis for criticism of the sentencing judge’s conclusions in respect of the three classes of offence or that he failed to have regard properly to both aggravating and mitigating factors – sentencing judge rightly imposed consecutive sentences – in the application of the principle of totality, he was right to significantly reduce the entire period to be spent in custody – sentencing judge did not fall into error of principle – judgment was extremely careful and had regard to all relevant factors – sentencing judges are given a margin of discretion – offending over so many years, was very serious and the consequences were devastating – mitigating factors are not such as to mean that the judge fell outside his margin of appreciation in imposing the sentence – appeal dismissed.