Man jailed for abuse of cousin argues judge should have considered his limited cognitive abilities
Ryan Dunne
A 36-year-old Tipperary man jailed for the sexual assault of his young cousin over a five-year period has argued that the trial judge did not give enough consideration to his limited cognitive abilities when imposing sentence.
The Court of Appeal on Monday heard that a psychologist’s report indicated that 96 per cent of people have a greater IQ than the appellant, who abused his cousin from when she was aged eight to 13.
The man pleaded not guilty to the sexual assault of the girl from June 2009 to September 2014, but he was convicted in May 2024 and sentenced by Judge Patrick McGrath to 11 years in prison, with the final year suspended.
The sentencing hearing was told that the abuse involved the girl being required to undress, with the appellant also undressing and lying on top of her, before he rubbed his penis against her vaginal area.
The sentencing judge described the offending as “a gross breach of trust by an older man on a particularly vulnerable young child”.
In launching an appeal against the sentence on Monday, Dermot Cahill SC said the first issue was whether the sentencing court was correct to set a headline sentence of 12 years.
He said that the bracket for serious offences of this nature was between nine and 14 years, but the sentencing judge had put this case in the upper part of the serious bracket, which counsel argued was an error in principle.
Cahill said that no aggression or intimidation was used in the offending, nor was there any “overt grooming”.
The second ground of appeal related to a report from a psychologist that indicated 96 per cent of people have a greater IQ than the appellant. Cahill said that while his client’s cognitive ability was not an explanation for the offending behaviour, it was a contributing factor.
Judge Nuala Butler remarked that the abuse had taken place in a room where the appellant could see people coming, so his actions were planned, thought out and carried out in a manner to evade detection.
Judge Isobel Kennedy said that, going by the report, it did not seem to be the position that the appellant did not know the difference between right and wrong.
She said that as the child was vulnerable and psychologically damaged, there were many aggravating factors that brought the case into the upper bracket of seriousness.
Cahill replied that the appellant had been assessed at a low risk of reoffending, so greater weight should have been given to this low risk and the appellant’s cognitive functioning when sentencing was imposed.
Counsel for the State, Dean Kelly, said that the sentence imposed of 11 years was in the bottom half of the higher range. While the appellant had no previous convictions, Kelly said that the appellant had spent his adult life “forcefully sexually abusing his child cousin”.
He said that the victim eventually confronted her aunt, the appellant’s mother, and that this woman then confronted her son, who apologised to the victim. Counsel said the appellant would be entitled to mitigation had he stood by this apology, but the appellant’s mother gave very firm evidence during his trial that this confrontation did not happen. Kelly said that this was dishonest.
Judge Kennedy, presiding, said that the court would reserve judgment in the case.
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/ or visit Rape Crisis Help. In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.
