The Court of Appeal has dismissed Shaun Groome’s appeal against the severity of his 15-year prison sentence for assault causing serious harm, finding no error in how the sentencing judge handled mitigation, rehabilitation or parity with his co-accused.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy on 30 January 2023, concerned an attack at an old stone cottage in Rhode, County Offaly, in September 2015. The court said the injured man suffered 16 stab wounds, including one to the heart cavity, and burns covering about 96% of his body. His injuries were life-threatening.
The judgment recounted evidence that Groome and a young male entered the injured man’s home. Groome stabbed him and threw petrol over him; the co-accused poured petrol into a stove, setting the injured man alight. CCTV showed Groome buying a red jerry can and petrol. A bloodstained knife was recovered from clothing found by gardaí, and the blood matched the injured man’s. Groome’s DNA profile was found inside the clothing.
Groome was sentenced on 21 December 2020 to 15 years’ imprisonment for assault causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. A criminal damage by arson offence was taken into consideration. The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of 20 years, then reduced it by five years for mitigation, including Groome’s guilty plea, prison conduct, apology and prospects of reform.
On appeal, Groome argued that he should have received greater credit for his plea and other mitigating circumstances, that part of his sentence should have been suspended, and that his sentence was too severe compared with his co-accused’s. The appeal court noted that the plea came very late, after Groome had absconded having taken a trial date and was later extradited from the United Kingdom. It held that the sentencing judge was entitled to give the plea less weight in those circumstances and had properly considered the other mitigation.
The court also found no error in refusing to suspend part of the sentence. It said the sentencing judge had considered Groome capable of reform. On parity, the court pointed to Groome’s older age, his role in driving to and from the scene, and his use of the knife and petrol. The co-accused was a juvenile and had a lesser role; his six-and-a-half-year sentence, with 18 months suspended, was consecutive to a sentence he was already serving.
The Court of Appeal concluded it was not persuaded that there had been an error in principle and dismissed the appeal.