The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a prison sentence imposed on Donnacha Loughnane for assault causing harm and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury. The court said the appellant had not established an error in principle in the sentences imposed.
Loughnane was convicted on 7 October 2022. On 12 January 2023, he received five years’ imprisonment for assault causing harm and four years for producing an article, with the final six months of each term suspended. The sentences run concurrently and were backdated to 20 February 2022, when he entered custody.
The appeal judgment says Loughnane went to a short-term residential unit for homeless people three times on 18 February 2022. On his final visit, he was carrying a lump hammer. After a physical altercation with a resident, he struck the injured party on the head, who fell to the ground, and then hit him at least six more times. The judgment records skull and eye socket fractures, loss of consciousness and wounds to the head and finger.
The sentencing judge treated five years as the appropriate headline sentence for the assault. The judge also cited the hammer’s use and the serious injuries as aggravating factors. Mitigation included Loughnane’s age, background and the absence of previous convictions considered relevant to sentencing. The final six months of each term were suspended.
On appeal, Loughnane argued that the sentencing judge had not properly assessed his culpability because the injured party threw the first punch, and had given insufficient weight to factors including his work history, alcohol and addiction issues, mental health, and loss of his home. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the judge had assessed culpability and mitigation appropriately.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the injured party threw the first punch, but said Loughnane had arrived prepared with a hammer and was actively involved in the fight that culminated in a serious assault. It found no error in the five-year headline sentence. The court also said the sentencing judge had considered mitigation and that suspending six months reflected the mitigating factors supported by evidence.
The appeal court said there was no evidence before it of mental illness. It dismissed the sentence appeal, leaving the concurrent sentences in place.