Courts

Woman’s unduly lenient sentence for neglect and ‘vile’ sexual abuse of toddler son overturned

Defendant, who has shown no remorse for her actions, given three-year prison term by Court of Appeal

Ms Justice Tara Burns said the sexual offending was of a very serious kind and while the respondent had a very low intellect, nothing placed before the court suggested she did not understand her actions. Photograph: Bryan O'Brien
Ryan Dunne
Mon Jul 29 2024 - 15:27

A woman has been jailed for the neglect and “vile” sexual abuse of her toddler son after the Court of Appeal ruled the fully suspended sentence she was initially given was unduly lenient.

The court heard the boy was placed in foster care before he turned five and was found to be unable to use a knife and fork, did not know how to drink from a cup, could not dress himself and had very poor language skills.

Noting the level of neglect and the “gravity and depravity of the sexual acts” inflicted on the child, Ms Justice Tara Burns on Monday imposed a three-year sentence on the 46-year-old woman, saying that none of this would be suspended as the respondent had failed to show any remorse for her offending.

The Cork native, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the victim, was convicted by a jury in June 2022 of wilful neglect of the child between September 2010 and June 2015, when the boy was aged between one and 4½ years.

READ MORE

She was also found guilty of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of the child on a date unknown between September 2013 and June 2015. She was sentenced by Ms Justice Karen O’Connor to three years on the counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation and one year on the count of child cruelty, with the sentencing judge suspending the remainder of the sentence due to the defendant serving 6½ months for failing to appear for a court date.

The woman, who had pleaded not guilty to the charges, lodged an appeal against her conviction, but this was dismissed in May. Ms Justice Burns said the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had appealed the suspended sentence on the grounds that the sentencing court failed to give sufficient weight to the child’s age, the severity of the neglect, the “gravity and depravity of the sexual acts” and the abuse of a position of trust.

The DPP also asserted that the sentencing court attributed excessive weight to “scant mitigating factors”, as well as imposing an overall sentence that constituted a substantial departure from what would have been proportionate.

Ms Justice Burns noted that the woman has a history of mental health difficulties having been in State care since the age of three and has been assessed as having extremely low intellectual functioning.

She said that the sexual offending was of a very serious kind and while the respondent had a very low intellect, nothing had been placed before the court to suggest she did not understand her actions.

Ms Justice Burns went on to say that the respondent had also vehemently denied she was involved in the offending, which showed she appreciated “the serious and vile nature” of the sexual acts carried out.

As the injured party had been treated in such a manner that he was found to be “devoid of the normal characteristics of civilised human behaviour expected of a child of his age”, Ms Justice Burns said this level of neglect reflected offending of a very serious nature by his mother.

Ruling that the headline sentence set initially reflected a substantial departure from the norm and was unduly lenient, Ms Justice Burns quashed the original sentence. She said a headline sentence of seven years was appropriate for the sexual exploitation and sexual assault charges, while three years was appropriate for the child cruelty offence. With the respondent continuing to vehemently deny the offending and showing no remorse, Ms Justice Burns said the level of mitigation appeared limited, but she noted the woman’s mental health issues and low intellectual functioning.

The judge imposed three years each on the count of sexual assault and sexual exploitation and one year for child cruelty, with the sentences to run concurrently and take account of time already spent in prison.