The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on Martin McDonagh for violent disorder, assault causing harm and possession of an article.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed on 12 October 2017: six years’ imprisonment for violent disorder and three years each for assault causing harm and possession of an article. All three terms were concurrent and suspended in full for five years, subject to a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
The offences arose from an attack on 16 May 2016, the day of a family funeral in Ballyhaunis, Co Mayo. The Court of Appeal’s judgment recounts evidence that McDonagh and three brothers were travelling in a Ford Galaxy that collided head-on with a car carrying two injured parties and their relatives. Two men fled and were pursued by the group, who were armed. The respondent was said to have had a machete or bill hook. Both men suffered significant injuries. McDonagh was convicted by a jury; he was specifically charged with assault causing harm to one injured party and with participating in violent disorder involving both.
The court heard that the sentencing judge set headline terms of six, three and three years, identifying the offending as serious and premeditated and noting the use of weapons, injuries and McDonagh’s previous convictions. The judge then adjourned sentencing twice to consider whether mediation might help end a longstanding family feud. The injured parties declined mediation and compensation. The €5,000 offered as compensation was instead given to charity.
When imposing the sentences, the judge suspended them for five years. The DPP accepted the headline terms but argued that suspending them entirely failed to give adequate weight to retribution and deterrence, and that a custodial element was needed.
The Court of Appeal said the sentences were undoubtedly very lenient, but that alone did not establish undue leniency. It held that the judge had acted within his legitimate discretion. The court noted that no further trouble had occurred during the adjournments and that the sentencing judge considered the prospect of ending the feud relevant to preventing further offending. It found no error of principle and dismissed the application.
The court said the respondent was fortunate to receive such lenient treatment and warned that a breach during the five-year suspension period could result in him being required to serve the full headline sentences.