Judgment: 2016-10-18 · Court archive

Court of Appeal reduces effective sentence for Aoife Molloy over violent Luas assault

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Aoife Molloy (Appellant)
  • Martin O’Connor
What

Court of Appeal reduces effective sentence for Aoife Molloy over violent Luas assault

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Initially, the investigating Garda told the sentencing judge that Molloy and O’Connor were equally culpable. After reflecting overnight, however, the judge concluded that Molloy had been the greater instigator and imposed a slightly heavier effective sentence.

The Court of Appeal has reduced the effective custodial sentence imposed on Aoife Molloy for a violent assault on a Luas passenger between Smithfield and Museum stops in Dublin.

Molloy had received four years' imprisonment with the final 18 months suspended. The appeal court increased the suspended portion to two years, bringing her sentence into line with co-accused Martin O’Connor.

The attack happened on December 11, 2014. The injured man, who worked as a Luas driver but was travelling as a passenger that night, was in the same carriage as Molloy and a group of young people who had been drinking.

After a verbal altercation, the man stumbled as the tram moved. CCTV showed Molloy kick him as he tried to get up. After he regained his feet and kicked towards her, O’Connor grabbed him. Molloy then struck him twice on the head with a full beer bottle. On a third blow the bottle smashed, after which she jabbed towards his face with the broken bottle and injured his lip.

The man required stitches to his head and lip and suffered a fractured bone between his jaw and eye.

Molloy pleaded guilty early. The sentencing court also heard about significant personal difficulties, addiction issues and steps she had taken towards rehabilitation. She offered €3,000 compensation.

Initially, the investigating Garda told the sentencing judge that Molloy and O’Connor were equally culpable. After reflecting overnight, however, the judge concluded that Molloy had been the greater instigator and imposed a slightly heavier effective sentence.

The Court of Appeal said that view was not unreasonable, given her use of the broken bottle. But once the judge changed his approach on relative culpability, Molloy’s lawyers should have been given an opportunity to respond.

The court also noted that Molloy had stronger mitigation and had continued to make significant progress in custody. It therefore increased the suspended portion to two years.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review