Roscommon man who sexually assaulted babysitter appeals convictions arguing sentence is too long

A Roscommon man who repeatedly sexually assaulted a teenage girl who babysat his children has argued that his five-and-a-half-year jail term was too severe.

Michael King (53) abused the girl at locations in Roscommon over a nine-month period, ending in September 2005.

In May 2023 at Roscommon Circuit Court, Judge Kenneth Connolly jailed King, of Warren View, Boyle, Co Roscommon, for five and a half years for 12 counts of sexual assault on the girl who was 16-years-old at the time of the offending.

The court heard that, over time, King began by kissing the girl before progressing to forcing her to touch his penis, masturbating him to ejaculation, and performing oral sex on the girl.

King had pleaded not guilty to all 12 charges but a jury unanimously convicted him on all counts.

The injured party, Tara Kelly, who was a babysitter for King’s children, waived her right to anonymity so that King could be publicly named as an abuser. At the time of the abuse, the Kelly and King families had been close, the sentencing court was told.

At the Court of Appeal today (Monday, January 29), Dara Foynes SC, for King, appealed what was submitted to be the severity of the overall sentence. Counsel for the appellant said the sentencing judge erred in his assessment of the gravity of the offending, “with the consequence being that he nominated a headline sentence of ten-and-a-half years that was excessive and disproportionate”.

Ms Foynes also submitted that the judge erred in principle by imposing consecutive sentences in respect of two counts of sexual assault and that the trial judge failed to “have sufficient regard to the mitigation present in the case”.

Counsel for the State John Francis Hayden BL said the judge was correct in law and principle regarding the totality principle and that the judge ”duly reflected the overall gravity of the offending, rendering that within his considerable discretion and margin of appreciation”.

Mr Hayden submitted that the judge gave a “detailed and considered” ruling in which he fixed the headline sentences that nominated and weighed up both the aggravating and mitigating factors before reaching the final sentence of five-and-a-half years, which he said was not unduly severe.

Mr Hayden said the judge had recognised the “sheer radius of destruction that occurred in this case”.

Mr Hayden said King progressed from kissing the girl to then touching the injured party before encouraging her to touch his penis, to masturbate him to ejaculation and culminating in him performing oral sex on the injured party.

Mr Hayden said that this amounted to a breach of trust, that there was a significant age disparity as he was 33-to-34 years-old while she was 16 and that the effects upon the victim had to be taken into account.

King had been sentenced to five-and-a-half years on two consecutive counts of sexual assault with the other ten charges taken into account.

Mr Hayden said the headline sentence of two-and-a-half years on one sexual assault offence, listed as count number one, “may have been viewed as too severe until the sentence is viewed as also taking into account eight more sexual assaults”. The trial judge then reduced that sentence to 18 months before suspending the final 12 months.

The headline figure of eight years on the last count of sexual assault on the indictment should also be viewed as a punishment that took into account two further sexual assaults, submitted counsel. That headline sentence was then reduced to five years’ actual jail time by the sentencing judge.

Mr Hayden said the last count of sexual assault was “the final act in a pattern of behaviour that had escalated and it reflects the overall gravity of the offending”.

Ms Foynes said the offending “commenced at the lowest end”, that of kissing and of two counts of touching the girl’s bottom outside of her clothing before the behaviour culminated in King performing oral sex on the girl.

Ms Foynes said “consecutive sentences should be used sparingly” and that “in general, consecutive sentences are for when there is more than one victim”.

Ms Foynes said the sentence was a “departure from the norm based on the facts”.

Counsel said her client was of “very good character prior to the episode and was also so after the commission of the offences”.

Ms Foynes said the complaint related to the 2005 offences was made in 2020 and in 2021 King, who was otherwise a “good person”, was arrested.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the complainant was “a very young girl” at the time of the offending and had been abused by a man almost 20 years her senior.

Mr Justice Birmingham said Ms Foynes’ client had already benefited from “almost a 50% reduction” in a case where there were no guilty pleas to be taken into account for mitigation.

Mr Justice Edwards said the offences were of an “escalating” nature and that King’s offending could not be described as “just kissing, plus other offences”.

Regarding the girl being a babysitter for King, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said this fact could be seen as a “breach of trust, making the matter even more serious”.

Mr Justice Edwards said there had been no guilty plea in the case and that King’s apology to the injured party had arrived at “five minutes to midnight”.

Mr Hayden said: “I don’t accept any error of principle by the trial judge when considering the totality of the sentence”.

Mr Justice Birmingham said the court would reserve its judgement in the matter.

Victim impact statement

In her victim impact statement, Ms Kelly said she had had a very happy and loving childhood but that her life changed forever at 16.

“He made me feel like I wasn’t a good person and that I was responsible for the disgusting things he did to me. I was 16. I was an innocent child, and he took that away from me,” she said.

“When the abuse was happening, I had become so accustomed to the behaviour and learned to just zone out and do what he asked. It was the only way I knew how to cope with what was happening to me. At the time I didn’t have the vocabulary, the knowledge or the courage to say no. To say stop,” she said.

Ms Kelly said the trial process made her and her family “endure a horrific, lengthy court trial, adding further damage and immense stress onto what has already been a traumatic period”.

“I have put up a long and strenuous fight to finally see the day that the system actually works for women like me - that justice will be served. I was too fearful, too weak to say anything. But I’m not that child anymore and I will not be shamed into silence.

“At 34 years of age, I am still learning that I have a voice, because I have been silent for so long and that my voice matters and that ‘no’ is always an option. I hope that my coming forward and my decision to waive anonymity will encourage other young people to come forward, to not feel shamed into silence and to know you are not alone,” she told the trial.