The Court of Appeal has dismissed Lawrence Mubango’s appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed for assault causing serious harm, leaving in place a 10-year prison term with the final 18 months suspended.
The ex tempore judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCarthy on 30 June 2022, concerned an appeal from a sentence imposed in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 15 July 2019. Mubango had pleaded guilty to assault causing serious harm and assault causing harm. He appealed only the sentence for the serious-harm offence. The three-year sentence for assault causing harm ran concurrently; both sentences were backdated to 17 May 2018.
The offences occurred at an apartment in Inchicore in the early hours of 17 May 2018. The judgment said Mubango stabbed Mr Ndluli in the chest and attacked Mr Ncube, who suffered a life-threatening abdominal wound. Mr Ncube was hospitalised until 10 August 2018 and, according to the judgment, remained a candidate for further liver surgery and a possible transplant.
The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of 12 and a half years, then imposed 10 years with the final 18 months suspended, subject to conditions including probation supervision and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal recorded that the judge considered aggravating factors including relevant previous convictions, the use of knives, and the attack taking place near a young child. Mitigating matters included the guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, family support and efforts to address addiction.
Mubango’s counsel argued that the headline sentence was excessive, that too little weight was given to the guilty plea and mitigation, and that the attack involved recklessness rather than an intention to cause serious harm. The prosecution relied on the seriousness of the injuries, relevant prior convictions and the sequence in which Mubango left and returned to the apartment armed with a knife.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered the relevant factors and that the headline sentence fell within her margin of discretion. It also held that the mitigating factors had received ample credit and that the effective custodial term represented a substantial reduction from the headline sentence. The court dismissed the appeal; it did not alter the sentence.