Man, 38, jailed for having sex with 14-year-old girl in arranged marriage has sentence increased

Senior judges held that the original nine-month term handed down to the 38-year-old man for offences which resulted in his child victim twice giving birth was unduly lenient.

Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan declared: “We are going to increase that sentence substantially.”

The man, who cannot be identified, was instead ordered to serve two years, with half in prison and the remainder on licence.

He was convicted at Newry Crown Court of engaging in sexual activity with a child over a 16-month period during 2015 and 2016.

The trial heard how he travelled back to Romania to arrange the so-called marriage with the then 14-year-old girl’s parents.

She was then brought to live with him in Northern Ireland and became pregnant twice before Social Services intervened.

Even though the defendant claimed his actions were traditional within his culture, he was said to have realised that the age of consent in Romania is 15.

The Public Prosecution Service referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, contending that the sentence imposed was too lenient.

David McDowell QC, for the authority, argued that the child victim had been “whisked away” and deserved legal protection from a man more than twice her age who knew their arrangement was wrong.

“The defendant said they were living together as man and wife, which was a euphemism for continual sexual contact,” counsel submitted.

“There was also a total lack of remorse by the defendant, he considered himself the victim and said she had taken advantage of him.”

Any perceived cultural differences provided no justification for his actions, Mr McDowell insisted.

He told the court: “In Northern Irish society we are bound by contemporary standards which have to be observed by all.”

Stressing that his submissions were not intended to be condescending towards another culture, the barrister added: “It is unfair to members of the Roma community who observe the law, recognise the wrong of entering into a sexual relationship with a child and hold dear the protection of children.”

Patrick Lyttle QC, representing the man, argued that any leniency in the sentence was justified due to the circumstances.

“Both the defendant and the victim did consider this to be part of their normal tradition,” he said.

But following submissions the appeal judges backed the PPS case.

With full reasons for their decision to be given at a later stage, Dame Siobhan confirmed: “We are quite clear this sentence was unduly lenient.”