The Court of Criminal Appeal has substituted a sentence of nine and a half years’ imprisonment for Adam Fitzgibbon after finding an error in principle in the original sentence imposed on him.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 17 July 2014, the court set a starting point of 12 and a half years before mitigation. It then allowed a three-year reduction, the maximum reduction it considered appropriate in the circumstances.
The court had previously ruled that an error in principle affected the original sentence and scheduled a further hearing to determine the appropriate sentence. It said the offence belonged at the top end of the range for the most serious comparable offences, but not in the exceptional category that could justify a sentence beyond that range, up to life imprisonment. The earlier judgment placed the upper end of the usual range for offences of this type between seven and a half and 12 and a half years.
The court said the relevant mitigating circumstances included Fitzgibbon’s young age, difficult background, history of substance abuse and more recent attempts to address those difficulties. It stressed that substance abuse and a difficult upbringing do not automatically qualify as mitigation: the court must consider the individual circumstances, including credible efforts at rehabilitation.
The judgment also addressed the prosecution’s role in sentencing hearings. It said prosecutors should bring relevant court guidance and reputable analyses of typical sentences to the sentencing judge’s attention, and may make submissions about how a case fits that guidance. Where no such guidance or analysis is available, prosecutors should not propose a sentence range. The court said prosecutors should address significant mitigation arguments when they consider those arguments do not warrant the claimed weight, while following existing guidelines on disputed facts raised in mitigation.
The court noted the frustration expressed by the Meaney family in an additional victim impact statement about the assault on Kevin and its permanent consequences. It said consistency in sentencing was important and that imposing a sentence above the established range in this case would increase disparity.
The judgment set the substituted sentence at nine and a half years’ imprisonment. It did not revisit the main factual and legal issues addressed in the earlier judgment.