The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that replaced a wholly suspended sentence for assault causing serious harm with a four-year sentence, suspending the final three years.
The appeal was heard on 27 July 2022, when the court told the parties it would be dismissed. The reasons were delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on 19 January 2023. The case concerned the weight to give a victim’s views on sentence and an offender’s voluntary offer of compensation.
Stephen Duffy pleaded guilty in the Dublin Circuit Court to causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The offence followed an unprovoked punch in a public area shortly after midnight on 29 August 2016. The victim, identified in the judgment as Mr Darley, suffered a brain bleed, underwent life-saving surgery and was in a coma for about two weeks. He had permanent loss of taste and smell and continuing health, memory, employment and housing difficulties.
In July 2021, the Circuit Court set a headline sentence of six and a half years and imposed a four-year term suspended in full. The judge cited remorse, the guilty plea, Duffy’s personal circumstances and other mitigation. Duffy had paid €10,000 and offered a further €10,000. The Court of Appeal later quashed the sentence as unduly lenient and imposed four years, with the final three years suspended. The Supreme Court appeal challenged that decision.
The Supreme Court said a victim’s view of the sentence generally cannot determine the outcome. A victim may ask for leniency on a reason specific to the accused, but the court found that Mr Darley’s later private messages expressing goodwill were not such a plea and were not intended for the courts. His account of the lasting effects of the assault remained relevant to the gravity of the offence.
The court held that a voluntary compensation offer can mitigate sentence when it genuinely reflects remorse and acceptance of responsibility. It does not rule out imprisonment, and money cannot purchase a lighter sentence. The court said the offer and payments in this case deserved credit, but the serious, lasting harm and the inexcusable circumstances made some imprisonment inevitable. It also said the delay before the guilty plea reduced the credit available, while noting Duffy could not be penalised for taking legal advice or contesting the case.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Court of Appeal’s sentence in place. The Supreme Court’s judgment set out general principles on victims’ views and compensation; it did not resentence Duffy.