The Court of Appeal has dismissed Sean Jackson’s appeal against the severity of a five-year prison sentence for assault causing serious harm, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach.
In a judgment delivered on 4 April 2019, Ms Justice Kennedy said the offence involved a violent, unprovoked attack with “disastrous and largely foreseeable consequences”. The court rejected arguments that the trial judge had wrongly considered Jackson’s intoxication and the absence of provocation.
The assault happened on 23 August 2014 in a pub smoking area. After what the judgment describes as a minor interaction with the injured party, Jackson left and returned shortly afterwards, biting off a large portion of the person’s ear. A witness notified gardaí and identified Jackson. He said he had no memory of the event, pleaded not guilty and was found guilty at trial on 6 November 2017.
Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed the five-year sentence on 4 December 2017. The sentencing judge set a pre-mitigation sentence of seven years, then reduced it by two years, describing the mitigation as moderate. The judge noted Jackson’s work record and remorse, and considered him unlikely to reoffend in the same manner. The judge also referred to his previous convictions but considered them largely irrelevant.
For Jackson, counsel argued that the seven-year starting point was too high and that the judge should have placed the offence on the scale described in an earlier Court of Appeal case. The appeal also challenged the use of intoxication and lack of provocation as aggravating factors and argued that part of the sentence should have been suspended.
The prosecution maintained that five years was not excessive given the seriousness of the assault and its consequences. It argued the seven-year starting point placed the offence at the upper end of the mid-range and that the sentence reflected substantial credit for mitigation.
The Court of Appeal said the judge was entitled to consider that Jackson left and returned after a very minor altercation, and that the attack was without provocation. It said intoxication was not a defence or a mitigating factor, and that Jackson remained responsible for his actions. The court found the seven-year pre-mitigation figure appropriate in light of the offence’s gravity and impact on the injured party. It concluded that full credit had been given for mitigation and dismissed the appeal.