Judgment: 2015-10-15 · Court archive

Court upholds 30-month sentence for unprovoked Dame Street nightclub assault

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Daniel Rains (Appellant)
  • Mr Manthalay
What

Court upholds 30-month sentence for unprovoked Dame Street nightclub assault

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Lapello nightclub
  • Dame Street
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the sentencing judge had properly balanced the serious, unprovoked violence and injuries against the strong mitigation. It also upheld the decision not to suspend part of the sentence and noted that the victim had rejected the compensation offer.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence imposed on Daniel Rains for an unprovoked attack which left a 21-year-old man with a fractured cheekbone and permanent facial scarring after a night out on Dame Street in Dublin.

Rains pleaded guilty to assault causing harm arising from the incident at Lapello nightclub on 26 January 2014. Three further serious assaults on security staff who intervened immediately afterwards were admitted by Rains and taken into consideration at sentencing.

The principal victim, Mr Manthalay, a Mauritian national, was leaving the club shortly before 2am when Rains stopped him and struck him without provocation. The court heard that Rains punched him repeatedly in the face and kicked him after he fell to the ground.

Mr Manthalay was initially treated at St James’s Hospital with 13 paper stitches. An X-ray showed a fractured right cheekbone. He later spent a week in hospital and had plates permanently inserted to stabilise the injury. He was left with a scar on the left side of his face.

Rains, who had travelled from Manchester that day, told gardaí he had been so intoxicated that he could not remember what happened. After viewing CCTV, however, he admitted his conduct, apologised, pleaded guilty and brought a significant sum of money to court in an effort to compensate the victim.

The sentencing judge nevertheless placed the assault at the higher end of offences under section 3, which carries a maximum five-year term, and imposed 30 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Rains argued that the sentence was excessive and did not sufficiently reflect his guilty plea, remorse, family circumstances and work history.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the sentencing judge had properly balanced the serious, unprovoked violence and injuries against the strong mitigation. It also upheld the decision not to suspend part of the sentence and noted that the victim had rejected the compensation offer.

The appeal was dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review