The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a man’s sentence for assault causing harm and threatening to kill his former partner, who was seven months pregnant at the time. The court said the sentence was lenient and found no basis to interfere.
The offences occurred on 12 June 2016 at the home the appellant shared with his former partner and another flatmate. The judgment recounts evidence that he punched and kicked the woman, pulled her hair, threatened to kill her and tried to strangle her. Their 20-month-old daughter was present. The flatmate said she heard the incident and was afraid to leave her room; she contacted a friend to call gardaí.
The woman had bruising and cuts to her face and bruising to her legs. She required follow-up medical attention, but had no fractures. The judgment records that the baby was delivered healthy. The woman did not wish to provide a victim impact statement or attend court.
The appellant pleaded guilty to assault causing harm and threatening to kill. Two further assault counts were discontinued by nolle prosequi. The Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed concurrent three-year sentences, suspending the final year for 18 months on conditions that included probation supervision, an alcohol awareness programme, abstinence from alcohol, urine testing and anger management. He received credit for three months and 10 days already served.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to his guilty plea, conduct on bail, apology and efforts to return to work, among other matters. The prosecution submitted that the sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the offences and the guilty plea. It said there was no evidence of efforts to address his alcohol problem.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing approach and the aggravating circumstances, including the woman’s pregnancy, the violence and threats, and the presence of the child. It said the trial judge had set a four-year headline sentence, reduced to three years to recognise the guilty plea, with the final year suspended to encourage rehabilitation.
The appeal court said a higher headline sentence could have been imposed, but the sentence actually set was not so lenient as to show an error of principle. It rejected the claim that the sentence was too severe and dismissed the appeal. The original sentences and suspension conditions therefore remained in effect.