The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against the severity of Kenneth McInerney’s sentence for violent disorder, suspending the final year of his three-and-a-half-year prison term.
The court substituted a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment, with the last year suspended. The suspension is subject to McInerney entering a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months after his release. The judgment does not state when he will be released.
The appeal concerned an offence in Cork city centre on 25 June 2017. The court said an argument began between two groups outside a bar after some passers-by sought cigarettes. After a barman intervened, fighting resumed in several street brawls. McInerney, who had initially been on the sidelines, joined in. The court described him concealing a glass bottle under his top and attempting to strike a man with it, trying to kick another man, throwing a pint glass at the opposing group and throwing a chair at another man. The incident was captured on CCTV.
McInerney had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, signing the plea in the District Court and affirming it after being returned for trial in the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal said such signed pleas carry particular weight. It found the five-year headline sentence used at sentencing excessive and concluded that the mitigating circumstances had not received sufficient weight.
The judgment records that McInerney was 22 at sentencing, had been in State care as a child, and had been living rough and in emergency accommodation in the city. His history of alcohol and substance abuse and his chaotic personal circumstances were raised in mitigation. He had 19 previous convictions, including convictions for robbery and assault, and was subject to a four-month suspended sentence for criminal damage when the offence occurred.
The appeal also raised the treatment of co-accused. The court said McInerney’s violence was more significant than Mr Hassett’s, particularly because he used glass, and accepted that the Circuit Court judge could find Hassett less culpable. It lacked enough information to comment on a third co-accused’s sentence. The court reiterated that relevant transcripts should be before a court when arguments about disparity are advanced, and that offenders must be sentenced individually.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the sentencing judge should have told counsel in advance that he would consider the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Sweeney. It said the judge was entitled to draw on case law. The court’s decision altered the sentence because of its severity; it did not replace the prison term with a non-custodial sentence.