The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions challenge to a fully suspended sentence imposed on Paul Dundon for assault causing harm, ruling that the sentence was lenient but not unduly lenient.
The court delivered judgment on 13 May 2024. Dundon had pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The Circuit Criminal Court imposed a sentence of three years and three months, suspended in full for four years, with probation supervision for the first 18 months.
The offence arose from an incident in the early hours of 17 June 2018 at a nightclub in Waterford. A dispute reportedly concerned money said to be owed to the injured party by Dundon’s brother. The judgment says security staff took Dundon and the injured party to a closed-off alley where beer kegs were stored, then watched as a fight developed. Dundon bit off part of the injured party’s right ear. The injury required surgery and left permanent disfigurement. CCTV captured the beginning of the incident, but not the biting.
At sentencing, the judge placed the offence at the upper end of seriousness for a section 3 assault and set a four-year headline sentence. The judge reduced it by nine months, citing mitigation that included the guilty plea, remorse, Dundon’s work record and circumstances, and the time since the offence. The plea was entered on the day the trial was due to begin. A probation report assessed him as a low risk of reoffending.
The DPP argued that suspending the entire sentence was an error in principle, gave excessive weight to rehabilitation, and failed to account sufficiently for deterrence and the seriousness of the assault. Dundon argued that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the circumstances and his conduct since the offence. The DPP’s appeal concerned the suspension of the sentence, rather than the four-year headline sentence.
The Court of Appeal accepted the assault was very serious and said another judge might have imposed immediate custody without that sentence being unduly severe. It nevertheless found the sentencing judge had not overstepped the margin allowed in balancing deterrence and rehabilitation. The court cited the mitigating circumstances and Dundon’s lack of further Garda attention over the substantial period before sentencing and through the appeal hearing, apart from the criminal damage conviction described in the judgment. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the original sentence in place.