The Court of Appeal has dismissed David Mahon’s appeal against the seven-year prison sentence imposed for the manslaughter of his stepson, Dean Fitzpatrick. The court held that the sentence fell within the available range for the offence.
Mahon had been tried for murder but the jury found him guilty of manslaughter. The Central Criminal Court imposed the sentence on 13 June 2016. The appeal argued that the sentencing judge had not sentenced in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
The trial involved opposing accounts of the fatal injury. The prosecution alleged that Mahon deliberately stabbed Fitzpatrick. The defence said Fitzpatrick had impaled himself on a knife Mahon was holding. In directing the jury, the trial judge outlined unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter as an option if the jury found that Mahon had committed such an act without intending to kill or cause serious injury.
The appeal court said it was not possible to conclude that the jury had definitively found Mahon produced the knife to frighten Fitzpatrick. The jury might have reached its manslaughter verdict by several routes, including finding an assault through putting Fitzpatrick in fear or an intentional act causing physical injury without intent to kill or cause serious injury. The court said the verdict established only that jurors were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mahon intended to kill or cause serious injury.
The court accepted the general principle that unresolved factual issues should be approached in the way most favourable to an accused. But it said that, in a murder trial ending in a manslaughter conviction, a sentencing judge may need to consider the case as a whole where more than one scenario could explain the verdict. The sentencing judge had not specifically addressed the defence submissions on how the jury’s verdict should be interpreted.
In assessing the sentence, the appeal court noted aggravating factors identified in the case: Fitzpatrick was followed from the apartment, a large knife was produced during the altercation, Mahon left the scene and medical assistance was not sought. It also noted that Mahon had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter before trial and had no previous convictions of real relevance. The court compared the sentence with earlier knife manslaughter cases, including cases where guilty pleas had been offered.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the seven-year sentence was not out of line with broadly similar cases and fell within the available range. It therefore dismissed the appeal against severity of sentence; the conviction and sentence were not changed by the appeal court.