The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gerard Browne’s appeal against a three-year prison sentence for assault causing harm to fellow prisoner Stephen Cooper, finding the sentence appropriate despite identifying a sentencing principle that should apply in such cases.
Browne was convicted by a jury at Portlaoise Circuit Criminal Court on 6 November 2015. The appeal concerned only his sentence, imposed that day. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 9 February 2017.
The judgment said Cooper was being escorted to the prison gym in May 2014 when Browne struck him on the head two or three times with a mug concealed in a sock. Cooper suffered a serious head injury requiring stitches. The incident was captured on CCTV and witnessed by a prison officer.
Browne admitted carrying out the assault but claimed Cooper had asked him to do it to persuade prison authorities that Cooper’s safety was at serious risk, potentially helping him secure early release. Browne said Cooper had agreed to provide documents, information and €1,000. Cooper denied any such agreement or consent.
Because the offence was committed while Browne was serving a prison sentence, section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 required the new sentence to run consecutively to the sentence he was already serving. The sentencing judge said he had considered that the new term was consecutive and described the offence as an attack on the smooth administration of the prison.
Browne argued that treating the prison setting as an aggravating factor imposed a double penalty, since the law already required a consecutive sentence. The prosecution maintained that the three-year term was appropriate and had not been increased because the assault happened in prison.
The Court of Appeal said the fact that an offence was committed while a person was serving a prison sentence should not itself be treated as an aggravating factor when calculating the sentence for that offence. Doing so would be an error of principle. It also said courts imposing consecutive sentences must apply the totality principle by reviewing the overall sentence and its impact.
However, the court said it was unclear whether the sentencing judge had in fact increased the term because the assault happened in prison. It found the three-year sentence was not unduly harsh given the seriousness of the offence and Browne’s previous convictions, and did not offend the totality principle. The appeal was dismissed.