The Court of Appeal has quashed a seven-year sentence for manslaughter and substituted a nine-year term, with the final year suspended, after allowing a review brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on grounds of undue leniency.
The sentence was imposed in the Central Criminal Court on 28 January 2019. The appeal court said the replacement sentence would run from the same date as the original sentence, which had been backdated to 3 April 2017 to account for time in custody.
The respondent, Joseph Hillen, had been charged with murder but was convicted of manslaughter. Before trial he offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, arguing excessive self-defence, but the DPP did not accept the plea. He then pleaded not guilty and was convicted by a jury.
The court described the offence as very serious. It noted that two fatal stab wounds were inflicted during a confrontation involving Hillen and another young man, and that the victim, taxi driver Martin Mulligan, was left seriously injured on a remote road. His car was removed and its keys disposed of, leaving him without a way to seek help, the judgment said.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge wrongly placed the offence in the upper midrange, gave too much credit for Hillen’s pre-trial plea offer and voluntary statements, and failed to refer to aggravating factors. Hillen’s counsel argued that the sentence was within the available range and that the jury’s verdict had to be respected.
The appeal court found the offence fell within the high-culpability category, but not the worst category of offending. It considered that an appropriate pre-mitigation sentence would have been 12 years and that the mitigating factors would not justify reducing the term below nine years to be served. It gave some credit for the plea offer, but less than would have been available had Hillen pleaded guilty to manslaughter at trial.
The court also considered Hillen’s age, his record of 15 convictions, none involving violence, and his reoffending after the killing. It said his relatively young age left hope for rehabilitation. As he was already well into his sentence and was working productively in prison, the court suspended the final year of the replacement term.