The Court of Appeal increased the suspended part of Denis O’Sullivan’s sentence from two years to three after finding that the original allowance for mitigation was inadequate. It otherwise left in place his sentence of 11 and a half years’ imprisonment for assault causing serious harm.
The court delivered its judgment on 22 July 2019 on O’Sullivan’s appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed by Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 23 November 2017. It quashed that sentence and resentenced him, limiting its intervention to the extra year of suspension. The terms of the suspension remained as set by the Circuit Court. The sentence was backdated to 26 January 2017, following discussion with counsel.
The assault happened at Anderson Quay in Cork city centre on 24 November 2016. The judgment says the injured man, a 45-year-old Somali national who had come to Ireland seeking asylum, tried to intervene when he saw O’Sullivan fighting with a woman. O’Sullivan produced a knife and stabbed the man in the left eye, leaving him with no sight in it. The sentencing judge described the knife as “like a dagger”.
O’Sullivan told gardaí the injured man had a broken bottle. Gardaí rejected that account, while the defence relied on a nick on O’Sullivan’s chin as evidence of a confrontation involving some “heat”. The appeal court recounted that dispute but did not make a new finding on whether the injured man had a weapon.
The appeal court rejected the argument that an 11-and-a-half-year headline sentence was excessive, saying it fell within the available range for an offence of this seriousness. It noted O’Sullivan’s previous conviction for an attempted robbery in which a knife was held to a taxi driver’s throat and the driver suffered a small cut.
The court also considered O’Sullivan’s guilty plea, difficult upbringing and personal circumstances, including his drug-related difficulties. It said the plea had been valuable because witnesses from Cork’s homeless community had been reluctant to take part in the investigation or court case. The court held that recognising those mitigating factors only by suspending two years was inadequate.
In resentencing, the court noted that a prison report was not positive and described aspects of it as disconcerting. It did not otherwise alter the Circuit Court sentence.