The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions review seeking to increase the sentence imposed on David Bannerton for two assaults in Galway city centre in June 2019.
Bannerton pleaded guilty to assault causing serious harm and assault causing harm. The sentencing judge imposed six years’ imprisonment for the serious harm offence, suspending the final 18 months for five years, and two years for the other offence. The sentences ran concurrently.
The assaults happened within minutes of each other in the early hours of 15 June 2019. The first man was struck in the face and kicked while on the ground, suffering a fractured right clavicle and a cut lip. In the second incident, a man who had got out of a taxi to intervene in a dispute involving Bannerton’s partner was struck several times, fell and hit his head on the road. He suffered a skull fracture and extensive head injuries. The judgment said he remained under the supervision of a community brain outpatient team.
The DPP argued that the sentence was unduly lenient, including because the judge gave too much weight to mitigation and imposed concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. The DPP also pointed to the impact on both injured men, Bannerton’s previous convictions and the circumstances of the guilty pleas. Bannerton’s lawyers argued that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the evidence and reports, and that the sentence did not significantly depart from the expected range.
The Court of Appeal said the assaults were grave and unprovoked, and noted the serious, ongoing effects of the injuries. It also considered mitigating material before the sentencing judge, including Bannerton’s guilty plea, remorse, difficulties with alcohol, mental health and background, alongside probation and psychiatric reports concerning rehabilitation.
The appeal court said it might have imposed a longer period of imprisonment if sentencing Bannerton itself. It nevertheless gave weight to the sentencing judge’s discretion and the time he had taken to consider the reports and sentence structure. The court described the sentence as “very lenient” and possibly at the outer limits of leniency, but concluded it did not amount to a substantial departure from the norm. It dismissed the DPP’s review, leaving the original sentence in place.