'Merciful approach': Kildare man who sexually assaulted girl (14) won't face extra jail time

THE Court of Appeal has taken a "merciful approach" to a then 21-year-old man from Co Kildare who was on bail when he sexually assaulted a teenage girl - a year after he had defiled her when she was aged 12 - and he will not face any extra jail time, despite a finding that his original sentence was too lenient.

The court ruled that a six-month prison sentence imposed on Ben Lawlor for the charge of defilement of a child was appropriate, given that the then 12-year-old victim factually (but not legally) consented to having sex and the respondent genuinely believed she was 16 when they met in 2023.

However, it found that a 14-month sentence was more appropriate for a subsequent charge of sexual assault, as Mr Lawlor knew the girl was only 14 when they met up again around a year later. The appeal court then suspended the unserved portion of this sentence.

The sentencing court heard that a 12-year-old girl was reported missing by her father on 20 May 2023, before being located the next day at Heuston Station.

The girl told her aunt she met the respondent, who was 19 at the time, on a dating app called Wink, presenting herself as 19 but telling him she was 16. The girl went to his home, where they had sex.

Around a year later, the respondent contacted the girl via Snapchat and Tik Tok and sent her sexually explicit material, including a photo of his penis. They then met at a location in the midlands, where they drove to a secluded spot and engaged in kissing and touching.

After pleading guilty to the defilement of a child, Lawlor, of Ban ne Gréinne, Craddockstown, Naas, was sentenced to six months in prison by Judge Terence O’Sullivan at Naas Courthouse in May 2025.

The respondent, who is now 22 years old, subsequently pleaded guilty to sexual assault, the use of information and communication technology to facilitate the sexual exploitation of a child, and meeting a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation, for which he received a consecutive 12-month sentence suspended in its entirety.

The DPP subsequently appealed both sentences as being unduly lenient.

At the commencement of the undue leniency application at the beginning of July, Mr Justice John Edwards noted that the girl was 12 at the time of the first offence, but the DPP accepted that the respondent, who was then 19, genuinely believed she was 16.

Counsel for the respondent, Michael Bowman SC, confirmed that the girl presented herself as 19 on an adult dating site.

Counsel for the DPP, Jane McCudden BL, said that the sentences imposed for both offences, individually and cumulatively, were a departure from what would be appropriate for similar offences.

She said a sentencing court must have regard to the harm caused, but nowhere in the transcript of the case was any reference to the victim impact statement, meaning there was a clear error in principle in the sentencing.

Ms McCudden said that had the sentencing court shown regard to the victim impact, it would have been aware that the child said that after the defilement, she had suicidal ideation and required therapy.

Counsel said that with regard to the second offences, the respondent was then a 21-year-old man who was on bail at the time.

In delivering the court’s judgment this week, Mr Justice Edwards said that concerning the six-month sentence on the defilement charge, while it was not possible for the complainant to legally consent, there was factual, albeit not legally recognised, consent.

He noted that the victim has been profoundly harmed, as was evident from her poignant victim impact statement, so it was right that the law should criminalise her defilement and proportionately punish the perpetrator.

Mr Justice Edwards said that the respondent’s culpability must be regarded as modestly reduced in the circumstances of this case.

He said the victim factually consented and the respondent genuinely believed she was 16, so the perceived, although not actual, age differential was only three years. It was also noted that the respondent had specific vulnerabilities, such as being lonely and immature for his age.

“What he did was unquestionably wrong and criminal, but the intrinsic culpability of his crime was relatively low,” said Mr Justice Edwards, adding that there was no suggestion of any form or coercion in this case.

He went on to say that there were no grounds for apprehending that the sentencing judge did not fully appreciate and take account of the harm done in the case of the defilement offence.

The sentencing judge concluded that this offender was neither a sexual predator nor a person who needed a sexual offending programme, although Mr Justice Edwards said the court did not feel that this latter remark was supported in the evidence.

Ruling that the court could not say that the six-month sentence was a substantial departure from the norm, Mr Justice Edwards dismissed this ground of appeal.

Moving on to the charge of sexual assault, Mr Justice Edwards noted that the nature of this was arguably towards the low end of the range of offending.

He noted that the victim’s actual age of 14 was at this stage known to the respondent, so this was undoubtedly an aggravating factor, as was the age differential between them.

Given that the respondent knew she was 14, Mr Justice Edwards said that only light, or at most modest, weight could be attributed to her actual consent and encouragement as a mitigating factor.

“We have no hesitation in saying that the 12-month headline sentence was too low, to a substantial extent,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

He said that the appropriate headline sentence would have been between 24 to 30 months.

Quashing the 12-month sentence, the court resentenced Mr Lawlor, setting a headline sentence of 26 months, reduced to 14 months, consecutive to the six month-sentence for defilement, giving a total of 20 months.

However, Mr Justice Edwards said the court would take a "merciful approach" and suspend any unserved balance of the 14 months, on condition that the respondent keep the peace, remain under probation supervision for 12 months and engage with a perpetrator sexual offending programme such as Safer Lives or any other suitable such programme.

Mr Lawlor was also directed to have no contact with the injured party for three years.