A seven-year jail sentence imposed on a journalist who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a teenage schoolgirl in a hotel bedroom was reduced to three years by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.
Frank Hamilton (49), formerly of Shanabooley Avenue, Ballynanty, Limerick, had pleaded guilty in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court last year to sexually assaulting the girl on two occasions between July 10th and November 30th, 1994; and January 1st and July 30th, 1995, at Jury's Inn, Christchurch, Dublin.
On July 27th, 1998, two consecutive sentences of 3 1/2 years had been imposed on each charge by the Circuit Court.
Yesterday, the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentence on each charge to three years and ordered that the sentences run concurrently.
Hamilton was editor of the now closed Limerick Weekly Echo and a former senior press officer with Shannon Development. He had also worked for a local radio and radio news service. He has no previous convictions.
The Circuit Court had been told that another man had befriended the young woman when she was aged 10-11. When she was aged 14, the man would bring her under an alias to the hotel to meet Hamilton who would pay him £40-£50 after each session.
Giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice Lynch - who sat with Mr Justice McCracken and Mr Justice O'Sullivan - said the charges related to a time when the victim had reached 14 years of age but was not quite 15.
One had to be bear in mind that Hamilton was not the prime mover in the events that had taken place, the judge said. The victim had been lured into a form of prostitution by another person.
Hamilton also, in a sense, had been lured into this situation to avail of the victim but, of course, it was entirely his own fault, in answering advertisements and phone calls and travelling long distances to meet the victim and her slightly older colleague.
The charges were charges of sexual assault simpliciter. There had been no question of any aggravated assault.
Whatever the assault, the court must approach the case on the evidence before it, that whatever was done was done with consent. There was no question of violence or threats or assault in the ordinary sense of that term.
It constituted sexual assault only by reason of Section 14 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, whereby any sexual contact with a person under 15 was deemed to be assault, no matter even if it were initiated in the first instance by the young person.
Mr Justice Lynch said in the circumstances of the case, there was no question of any dominance on the part of Hamilton or any question of an abuse of trust such as could arise where an accused was a parent, relative, teacher or pastor. The charges were simply two offences of sexual assault and nothing more - that was what the court must deal with.
In the circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied the Circuit Court judge had erred in principle in imposing consecutive sentences and it would substitute concurrent sentences.
It also took into account that Hamilton had been beaten up by vigilante citizens. He had obviously been beaten up on a completely false view of what was the true position. He had rightly been held up to opprobrium also but on a basis that was rather excessive.
In the circumstances, bearing in mind those two factors, the court would reduce the sentence to three years on each charge and order that they be concurrent.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, for Hamilton, had submitted that the sentence imposed was grossly excessive and harsh in the circumstances and that consecutive terms should not have been imposed on each charge.