Judgment: 2016-07-08 · Court archive

Court of Appeal reduces sentences for two men after sentencing error

The court ordered a fresh sentence hearing after finding the original judge had treated an unsupported allegation about punching on the ground as significant.

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • James Hodgins
  • Ronan Hackett (Appellant)
What

The court ordered a fresh sentence hearing after finding the original judge had treated an unsupported allegation about punching on the ground as significant.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Drogheda
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences imposed on James Hodgins and Ronan Hackett for assault, finding that the original sentencing judge had treated an unsupported detail about the attack as significant.

The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences imposed on James Hodgins and Ronan Hackett for assault, finding that the original sentencing judge had treated an unsupported detail about the attack as significant.

Both men had pleaded guilty to assault under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Hodgins received three years in prison. Hackett received a similar sentence, with the final six months suspended. They appealed on the grounds that their sentences were excessive and that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered mitigation.

The court said prosecution evidence described an unprovoked attack following an encounter in a public house in Drogheda. The injured party was punched in the head by Hodgins, then punched several times around the head by both men. He suffered serious facial injuries, underwent surgery and had a plate inserted beneath one eye, leaving permanent numbness.

The sentencing judge had referred three times to the injured party being punched while on the ground. After sentence was imposed, the prosecution told the judge the injured party had not alleged this, and CCTV evidence also supported that account. The judge declined to vary the sentences. The Court of Appeal concluded the detail had been treated as significant and required a fresh sentence hearing.

In Hackett’s case, the court considered his guilty plea, remorse, health problems and efforts to address chronic alcohol misuse. It agreed with the original judge that the assault was very serious and that imprisonment was appropriate, but reduced his sentence to two years, suspending the final 12 months.

Hodgins had previous convictions and addiction problems. The court also considered a prison report describing his conduct and work privileges. It imposed a two-year sentence, suspending the final six months on condition that he enter a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for one year after release. The same bond condition applies to Hackett.

The judgment does not state the date of the assault or when either man will be released.

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