The Court of Appeal has found that sentences imposed on Patrick Lynch for assault causing harm and abducting a child were unduly lenient, quashed them and imposed longer terms.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The court, in an ex tempore judgment delivered on 14 January 2019, said the sentences did not reflect the gravity of the offending. It increased the sentence for abduction from two years, with the final six months suspended, to three years, with the final nine months suspended. For assault causing harm, it increased the term from 18 months to two years. The court said the change increased the time to be spent in custody by 50%. The suspension terms remained as set by the Circuit Court.
A jury had convicted Mr Lynch on 12 April 2018 of assault causing harm, abduction of a child and being drunk in charge of a child. The sentences under review were imposed in the Circuit Court on 17 April 2018. The Court of Appeal’s stated resentencing orders concerned the abduction and assault sentences.
The prosecution arose from events on 7 November 2016. The judgment records that Mr Lynch’s then partner, identified as Ms D, testified at trial that he struck her with a brush handle and punched her while she was holding her infant son, identified as C. The court described the incident as a serious and disturbing assault involving a weapon, followed by the child’s abduction and threats to the mother that she would not see her baby again. It said the child was later handed back unharmed.
The DPP argued that the assault, the injuries, the circumstances and duration of the child’s removal, and Mr Lynch’s substantial previous record aggravated the offending. The defence accepted that mitigation was limited but referred to a chaotic early life and teenage years. The Court of Appeal said the case was contested, there was little mitigation and Mr Lynch had a poor record, including convictions for violent offences.
The court noted that the sentencing hearing had not included a factual summary because the trial judge had presided over the trial. It said such summaries are important to facilitate appeals and expressed the hope that they would be included in future sentencing transcripts.