The Supreme Court has warned that money offered to a victim must never determine a criminal sentence, while stating that an inadequate sentence in Stephen Duffy’s case had to remain because the prosecution had not appealed.
In a judgment delivered on 19 January 2023, Mr Justice Charleton said the case was a warning against allowing informal payments or a victim’s expressed wish for leniency to displace the courts’ responsibility to impose a just sentence. Any money offered should be assessed sceptically and could not be decisive, he said. A court may make a formal compensation order under section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, subject to the statutory limit tied to damages recoverable in a civil action.
Duffy had pleaded guilty to assault causing serious harm after an unprovoked attack in Tallaght. The victim, a stranger to Duffy, was punched, suffered a brain bleed and spent a period in a coma before life-saving surgery. The judgment said the victim could no longer work and lived with mood swings and persistent fear associated with the brain injury.
The Supreme Court judgment described the original sentence as inadequate. The Circuit Criminal Court had identified a six-and-a-half-year headline sentence before mitigation. The Court of Appeal revised the sentence on the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal, in a judgment dated 8 March 2022. Charleton said that revision should not be treated as a precedent. He also said the appeal before the Supreme Court did not permit revision of the inadequate sentence: the prosecution had not appealed it.
The court criticised the assessment of mitigation. The defence had relied on an offer of €5,000 to the victim and a conditional further €10,000 if Duffy could continue working and avoid custody. The judgment said the amount was derisory in light of the harm. It also recounted that Duffy walked away after the assault, returned briefly while the victim was unconscious, and later left. Police identified him through CCTV and distinctive clothing. After misleading and evasive interview answers and an unsuccessful application to dismiss the charges, he pleaded guilty when a second trial began and the victim was present. Charleton said there was very little, if any, mitigation from the timing of the plea.
The judgment said sentencing courts should consider established appellate guidance on seriousness and sentence ranges. It said the victim’s views about leniency or punishment could not replace judicial assessment, and warned that informal contact between accused people and victims could be vulnerable to pressure or manipulation. The Supreme Court set out these principles but left the sentence in place.