The Court of Appeal has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on Damon Buggy for assault causing harm and producing a knuckle-duster during a dispute.
The court said the sentence was “very lenient” but did not amount to a substantial departure from the norm, the test for allowing the application. It held that the sentencing judge had acted within his discretion in prioritising rehabilitation and gave reasons supported by evidence.
Buggy had pleaded guilty to assault causing harm on the basis that he had not used a knuckle-duster. A jury later convicted him of producing the weapon. The offences arose from an incident outside an Abrakedabra restaurant in Poplar Square, Naas, on 23 December 2018. The court heard that the victim was punched repeatedly in the head and suffered wounds requiring stitches and staples, a burst eardrum and concussion.
At sentencing on 30 May 2022, the Circuit Court set a four-year headline sentence for the assault, then reduced it by two years to account for mitigation. It imposed a concurrent 12-month sentence for producing the article. Both sentences were suspended in full for four years, subject to conditions including probation supervision, treatment for substance misuse, possible anger management, abstinence from cannabis and other intoxicants, and payment of €2,500 compensation to the victim within two years.
The DPP accepted the four-year headline sentence and the two-year reduction, but argued that suspending the remaining two years in full gave excessive weight to mitigation. The prosecution cited the weapon, the victim’s injuries, a previous knife-possession conviction and concerns about the respondent’s ongoing cannabis use and other Garda attention.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged those concerns. It also noted evidence of Buggy’s progress in employment, his employer’s positive assessment, and the probation report’s indication that he had reflected on his drug use and committed to addressing it. The court considered the conditions attached to the suspended sentence relevant to those risks. It said the precise circumstances of the earlier knife offence were not known and that the counter-indications did not make the sentencing judge’s decision unjustifiable.
The court stressed that its decision did not diminish the victim’s suffering, which had been taken into account in setting the headline sentence. It refused the DPP’s application. The original suspended sentences and conditions therefore remain in place.