The Court of Appeal has quashed a four-year sentence for assault causing harm after finding that suspending two and a half years was unduly lenient. It imposed the same four-year term with 18 months suspended, meaning two and a half years must be served.
The court delivered its judgment on 7 November 2022 in an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The respondent, Saturnin Szopa, had been sentenced by the Circuit Court on 18 May 2022. His sentence dated from 6 October 2021.
The assault took place on 19 September 2021 at the house where the complainant was then living, described in the judgment as the joint family home. The court said Szopa verbally abused her, pushed her to the floor, twisted her left leg and foot, then jumped on the leg. She later learned it was broken. She sought medical attention on 8 October and underwent surgery involving screws and a plate.
The Circuit Court dealt with the case on a full-facts basis. Three breaches of a safety order—in July, September and October 2021—were taken into consideration. The Court of Appeal also noted a prior conviction for breaching a safety order relating to the same complainant. It said the assault was particularly serious, aggravated by domestic violence, the injuries, and the fact it was committed while Szopa was on bail. The judgment described the actions as designed to cause maximum pain and injury.
The Director did not challenge the four-year headline sentence, but argued that suspending two and a half years made the overall sentence unduly lenient. Szopa accepted that the sentence was lenient but argued that it had been carefully structured and should not be changed. The court accepted there were mitigating factors, including an early plea, and said some part suspension was justified. It found the extent of the suspension excessive and an error in principle.
The Court of Appeal quashed the Circuit Court sentence and substituted a four-year term with 18 months suspended. The conditions remained the same: no contact with the complainant and treatment for alcohol abuse. The sentence retained the same start date. The judgment noted that the complainant had since moved to another address, obtained a barring order and was receiving support from relevant services.