The Court of Appeal has dismissed Laura Kenna’s appeals against her conviction for attempted murder and assault causing serious harm, and against the severity of her sentence. The judgment was delivered on 1 October 2020.
Ms Kenna was convicted after a Central Criminal Court trial on 5 March 2019. She received 15 years’ imprisonment, with the final five years suspended subject to conditions. The appeal court found no basis to interfere with either decision.
At trial, the central dispute was whether Ms Kenna qualified for the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Two consultant psychiatrists agreed she had schizoaffective disorder but disagreed about her mental state during the January 2017 attack in Drumcondra, Dublin. Dr Stephen Monks considered that her psychosis meant she did not know the nature and quality of her actions and could not resist acting. Professor Harry Kennedy concluded that she understood what she was doing, knew it was wrong and could refrain from it.
The appeal argued that Professor Kennedy’s evidence lacked cogency and was contradicted by other evidence, so no reasonable jury could have rejected the insanity defence. The court noted that the jury heard both experts and that Professor Kennedy was cross-examined about his assessment and its basis. It said credible expert evidence supported the jury’s guilty verdict, and the decision between the conflicting opinions was for the jury. The court therefore dismissed the conviction appeal.
The sentence appeal argued that Ms Kenna’s significant mental health problems warranted a greater reduction from the trial judge’s 17-year headline sentence. It also submitted that her history of homelessness and drug addiction heightened the risk she would have to serve the suspended part. The trial judge had reduced the term to 15 years, citing mitigating factors including admissions and indicated remorse, then suspended the final five years with conditions covering good behaviour, residence, probation, psychiatric appointments and treatment, and abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
The Court of Appeal described the offence as one of the utmost gravity and found no error in principle in the sentencing approach. It dismissed the sentence appeal.