The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on M. R. for a series of offences in Thurles in June 2019.
The application concerned the sentences on one of two indictments dealt with at the same sentencing hearing. M. R. had pleaded guilty to all charges. The DPP’s main challenge was to the sentence for assault causing harm to Justin Coman, an elderly man with significant mobility difficulties.
The court heard that CCTV showed M. R. kick Coman, knocking him to the ground, and kick towards his upper body. Coman suffered a broken shoulder and a cut lip. The shoulder injury meant he could no longer use a walking stick on that side and, because he needed two sticks, he was unable to walk again. He died about eight and a half months later, but the judgment said his death was unrelated to the assault.
The June 5 incidents also involved assaults on James Browne and Kevin Carey. Browne was kicked on the hip and had his mobility scooter keys taken and thrown into a bin; he reported soreness but no other injury. Carey was punched and slapped and suffered no significant injury. The respondent was heavily intoxicated when gardaí arrived. He later said he did not remember the incidents and described having schizophrenia and “mad rushes”.
A separate indictment concerned a May 2019 arson at a house in Thurles where M. R. lived. The reported damage estimate was about €16,000, but no supporting documents were provided, and the extent of damage was disputed at sentencing. The DPP did not seek a separate review of the arson sentence.
The Circuit Court imposed three and a half years for the assault on Coman, suspending 18 months for three years. It imposed concurrent four-month sentences for the two other assaults. The court also imposed a two-year suspended sentence on the arson indictment, with the sentencing judge saying it would have the same effective meaning as the original arrangement. The respondent was directed to receive psychiatric services in custody, with possible referral to the Central Mental Hospital if his condition significantly deteriorated.
The Court of Appeal said the assault was egregious and, if the respondent had been in full mental health, could have warranted starting at the five-year maximum. But it found that he was seriously mentally ill and psychotic at the time, substantially reducing his culpability. The evidence did not establish whether his drinking was a culpable choice made with awareness of its effects or was connected to his deteriorating mental state. The appeal court accepted the sentencing judge’s assessment and found the sentence, though generous in its suspended portion, within the judge’s discretion. It refused the application.