The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paul Coady’s appeal against a five-year sentence for assault, leaving in place a sentence with its final year suspended for three years.
Coady pleaded guilty to assault contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He was convicted at the Circuit Criminal Court in Clonmel on 25 November 2014 and sentenced on 29 April 2015. The appeal concerned sentence only.
The assault took place on 11 June 2012. The judgment says Coady and his brother, a co-accused, ran towards the victim and a friend as they walked home in Carrick-on-Suir. Coady punched the victim in the head, knocked him to the ground and kicked him. While the victim was unconscious, the co-accused struck him with a bottle and pushed the broken bottle into his face. The judgment describes Coady as continuing to kick the victim.
The victim suffered facial swelling and bruising, cuts to his forehead and cheek requiring stitches, and lasting scars. His victim impact statement described psychological trauma, depression and fear of leaving home.
Coady had 34 previous convictions, including two section 3 assaults. His appeal challenged the sentence as excessive and argued, among other grounds, that the judge gave too little weight to his guilty plea and other mitigation. It also challenged the difference between his sentence and his brother’s: both received five years, but 20 per cent was suspended for Coady compared with 50 per cent for his brother.
The Court of Appeal said the sentence amounted in practical terms to four years in custody, and therefore included a 20 per cent reduction for mitigating factors, including the guilty plea. It rejected the argument that the sentence was unreasonable compared with the co-accused’s. The court cited differences identified by the sentencing judge, including the brother’s fewer convictions, his visit and apology to the victim, and a more positive probation report. It also noted that both men had taken part in a vicious assault while the victim lay defenceless.
The court concluded that the five-year sentence with the final 12 months suspended was within the appropriate range and the sentencing judge’s discretion. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not alter the original sentence.