The Court of Appeal has increased Keith Malone’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment for stabbing his former partner four times, finding that the three-year sentence imposed by the Circuit Court was unduly lenient.
The court quashed the original sentence and imposed four years, with the final three months suspended for two years. The sentence is backdated to the date of the Circuit Court sentence. The suspension is subject to a bond on the same terms and conditions imposed there.
The judgment, delivered on 3 November 2022 by Ms Justice Donnelly, followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The Court of Appeal said the DPP had to show a substantial or gross departure from an appropriate sentence, amounting to an error of principle, before it could intervene.
The court heard that Malone pleaded guilty to assault causing harm and producing an article capable of causing harm. The assault took place on 6 January 2019 at the home of his then partner, identified in the judgment as Ms K. As she tried to escape, he stabbed her in the back and arm. She spent 19 days in hospital with injuries including a collapsed lung and a liver laceration. Their infant child was present.
The sentencing judge set a five-year headline sentence on each count, to run concurrently, then reduced it to three years and suspended the final three months. The DPP accepted that the five-year starting point was justified, but argued the reductions gave excessive weight to mitigation, including the guilty plea and Malone’s conduct after the assault.
The Court of Appeal said the guilty plea was made early in the Circuit Court but not at the first opportunity: Malone had waited to receive the book of evidence. It said the plea had value, but not the highest value, given independent witnesses to the aftermath and Malone’s admissions. The court also found that a further four-month reduction revisited mitigating factors already counted. His previous convictions limited the scope for mitigation based on good character.
The court concluded that reducing the five-year headline sentence by nearly 45 per cent, including the suspension, was disproportionate and a substantial or gross departure. In resentencing, it deducted one year for the mitigation and suspended the final three months, citing evidence that Malone had taken rehabilitative courses while in custody. The court said it did not need to resolve whether the original suspension had an evidential basis.