Sentence for man who defiled child and sent her sexually explicit photo too lenient, State argues

Ryan Dunne

The State has argued that a six-month prison sentence was too lenient for a then-19-year-old man who had sex with a 12-year-old girl and later sent her sexually explicit material before they again met up for kissing and touching at a secluded location.

Barristers for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said that the girl had suicidal ideation and required therapy after being defiled by Ben Lawlor, now 22, of Ban ne Gréinne, Craddockstown, Naas, Co Kildare.

The sentencing court in May 2025 heard that a 12-year-old girl was reported missing by her father on May 20th 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 TikTok 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, the respondent was sentenced to six months in prison by Judge Terence O’Sullivan at Naas Courthouse in May 2025.

He 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 this sentence as being unduly lenient.

At the commencement of this undue leniency application before the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Judge 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.

Judge Edwards said that a psychological report on the respondent indicated he was immature for his years and had a personality disorder, so the sentencing judge accepted he was vulnerable, as was the injured party.

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, meaning there was a clear error in principle in the sentencing.

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

Counsel said that concerning the second offences, the respondent was then a 21-year-old man who was on bail at the time. She said that it could not be determined who instigated this meeting, to which Judge Edwards remarked that the sentencing judge would have therefore been obliged to give the more favourable view to the accused.

Judge Edwards went on to say that it did not follow that because there was no specific mention of harm done, it did not mean that the sentencing judge was not alive to it, so it was to be inferred that he took account of all the evidence when imposing sentence.

McCudden said that the mistake by the respondent in the girl’s age was relevant, but her actual age was also a factor that the court ought to consider.

She said that he was 21 at the time and aware of the age disparity, but while the sentencing court took this into consideration, it was not reflected in the sentence.

McCudden went on to say that when they met up on the second occasion, there was touching and kissing in absence of legal consent, so he pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

Counsel said that a 12-month sentence was imposed and suspended in its entirety, going on to say that the judge was misguided in the requirement to impose a consecutive sentence.

Judge Edwards said the sentencing judge recognised there had to be an element of censure, but he also had regard to the circumstances of the offender, feeling there was scope to encourage rehabilitation by suspending the second sentence.

McCudden replied that a wholly suspended sentence was inappropriate, as, regarding the element of deterrence for both the respondent and society, it would have been more appropriate to impose a partially suspended sentence.

On behalf of the respondent, Bowman said his client had been assessed at a low risk of sexual reoffending and a moderate risk of other reoffending.

He said that on the second occasion, there was evidence of kissing and touching, with the girl kissing the respondent and giving him a love bite.

He said that the sentencing judge took account of the aggravating factors, including that the girl was 14 during the second occasion and could not consent, while the respondent was on bail.

Bowman also suggested that the second sentence was not wholly suspended, as the respondent had spent time in custody on remand.

He argued that the sentencing court did identify that the second set of offences were more serious, he said the girl had set up different online accounts and the respondent clicked on one account without realising it was hers.

Counsel said that the photo the respondent sent was not of an erect penis, and he had indicated at that time that he did not know he was sending a picture to a 14-year-old girl.

Bowman went on to say that the respondent lacked social skills due to the “cruelty visited upon him by people he thought were friends", so he "withdrew and lived on his phone".

He said the sentencing judge was entitled to “communicate a degree of humanity” due to the respondent’s unique and challenging circumstances, adding that it was beyond comprehension to suggest an experienced judge would not take into account the victim impact statement.

“It cannot be suggested he is not cognisant of the position of the complainant,” said Mr Bowman, adding that there is a statutory presumption of the harm done to a victim in such a case.

Judge Edwards said the court would reserve judgment in the case to a later date.