The Court of Appeal has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review as unduly lenient a wholly suspended sentence imposed on Eddie Farnan for threatening to kill or cause serious harm, assault causing harm and criminal damage.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 28 September 2020, said a substantial custodial sentence would normally follow an assault of this kind. But it concluded that the sentencing judge had remained within her discretion in treating Farnan’s rehabilitation and personal circumstances as exceptional mitigation. The court said the sentence was lenient, but did not reach the threshold of undue leniency.
The offences were committed against Farnan’s former partner, Lisa Power, in her home on 2 June 2017. The judgment said he grabbed and dragged her, placed his hands around her neck, threatened that she would not leave alive and used further physical force. Their young child was in the house. Power escaped to a neighbour’s home with the child. Medical reports recorded bruising, neck pain and restricted movement; the victim impact statement described continuing psychological and physical effects.
The sentencing judge imposed wholly suspended terms totalling 33 months, with supervision and conditions including offence and victim focused work, assessment for a domestic violence perpetrator programme, and continued engagement with services addressing accommodation, anger management and substance misuse. The DPP accepted on appeal that the sentence for assault exceeded the court’s jurisdiction because the conviction was for section 2 assault, not section 3. The respondent also agreed that this term required reduction.
The Court of Appeal considered the offence grave and said it would normally attract custody. It also noted the probation officer’s evidence of Farnan’s progress in addressing longstanding addiction and psychological difficulties, and the officer’s view that further rehabilitation could be undertaken in the community. The court distinguished a previous case relied on by the DPP, finding the depth of Farnan’s challenges and the steps he had taken to address them significant.
It also said the assault was the core of the incident and considered it artificial to rely on the threat charge to construct a more severe sentence, given that the assault conviction was under section 2. The court refused the DPP’s application and left the sentence undisturbed.