The Court of Appeal has dismissed both appeals concerning the six-and-a-half-year prison sentence imposed on Constantin Zaharia for assault causing serious harm to his former partner at Clonee, Co Dublin, on 9 May 2015.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentence was unduly lenient. Zaharia cross-appealed, arguing that it was excessive. The Circuit Criminal Court had imposed the sentence on 28 July 2016.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had identified nine years’ imprisonment as the appropriate sentence before mitigation. The DPP did not dispute that starting point, but submitted that the judge had allowed too much mitigation, particularly given that Zaharia’s guilty plea was entered only after the injured woman had travelled from Romania for the trial.
Zaharia’s counsel argued for a lower sentence, citing his previous history, guilty plea, participation in rehabilitation programmes while in custody before sentencing, and matters in a psychological report.
The appeal judgment recounted the sentencing judge’s remarks that Zaharia had assaulted his sister, his partner and his partner’s father with a Stanley knife. The partner and her father were left with residual scarring. The judge described the assault as serious and said alcohol provided no excuse. He also considered Zaharia’s age, lack of previous convictions, rehabilitation efforts and background and vulnerabilities described in the report.
The Court of Appeal noted that there had been confusion at the end of the sentencing hearing. The sentencing judge returned to clarify that he had imposed six-and-a-half years in prison, rather than a nine-year term with the final two-and-a-half years suspended. The DPP’s counsel said she was unlikely to have sought a review had the latter sentence been imposed.
The court said a nine-year sentence with the final two-and-a-half years suspended would have been more appropriate. However, it was not satisfied that the sentence actually imposed was a substantial departure from the appropriate range, as required for the DPP’s application, and dismissed it.
It also dismissed Zaharia’s appeal. The court said the sentencing judge had considered the relevant factors and that, given the seriousness of the injuries, the sentence could not be considered excessive. The appeals court made no change to the sentence.