The Court of Appeal has set aside Edward Byrne’s 12-year sentence for manslaughter after finding that the sentencing judge wrongly relied on an adverse view of witnesses from a co-accused’s murder trial and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating circumstances. The court has not yet imposed a replacement sentence.
Byrne had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the fatal assault on Lukasz Rzeszutko, who was attacked while walking to work in Dublin’s Newtown Industrial Estate. Rzeszutko died in hospital two days later from severe head and facial injuries. Byrne appealed the severity of his sentence, imposed in March 2012.
The appeal court rejected Byrne’s arguments that his sentence was unjustifiably harsher than that of co-accused Stephen Byrne and that the sentencing judge had overstated the seriousness of his role. It said differences in criminal history, age, cognitive ability, bail status and participation in the attack justified the sentences imposed. It also agreed that the offence was at the upper end of the mid-range for manslaughter, describing the attack as gratuitous and callous. The sentencing judge had imposed 12 years on Byrne to run concurrently with a three-year sentence he was already serving, meaning nine additional years in custody. Stephen Byrne received nine years, with the final three suspended.
The court upheld two other grounds. It found that the sentencing judge had wrongly rejected accounts from Lauren Mooney and Angela Whelan based on impressions formed during Martin Morgan’s murder trial, where Byrne was neither present nor represented. The sentencing court had received a prosecution summary of their evidence, confirmed by a detective. The appeal court said the judge was not entitled to go behind that evidence on the basis of credibility assessments from a trial in which Byrne could not participate.
The appeal court also found that some mitigation had been overlooked. It said the evidence indicated Byrne may have entered the fray in an attempt to stop the attack, was the last to join and first to leave, and had a shorter and more limited role than the other assailants. It also said his efforts in prison to address drug and alcohol problems and take part in education and work should have been given greater weight as evidence of rehabilitation. The court said his cooperation with investigators was limited, citing contradictory accounts and attempts to blame others.
Having allowed the appeal on two of four grounds, the Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence and said it would substitute an appropriate sentence. It first gave Byrne an opportunity to provide up-to-date material relevant to sentencing.