The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to increase the sentences imposed on Kieran Murray for offences arising from a violent incident in Dublin in 2015. The court found the sentences were not outside the norm and unduly lenient, so it did not interfere with them.
Murray had pleaded guilty to nine counts, including violent disorder, three assaults causing harm, unauthorised use of a Taser, burglary, two counts of false imprisonment and possession of a broken bottle with intent to cause injury or intimidation. The Circuit Criminal Court imposed concurrent sentences. The longest was three years, with the final two years suspended, leaving one year to be served. The sentencing judge also ordered probation supervision and set conditions for the suspended portion.
The offences arose from an attack on two men near a home on South Circular Road on 19 July 2015. The court heard that Murray used a Taser and a broken bottle. One injured man sustained cuts to his head and face; another suffered stab wounds to his chest and back, injuries requiring surgery and intensive care. The Court of Appeal described the incident as disgraceful and said significant harm had been caused.
The DPP argued that the sentence was too lenient given the seriousness of the offending, the injuries, attacks on men after they fell, and Murray’s entry into a couple’s home while evading arrest. The DPP also challenged the weight given to mitigation and rehabilitation, and said the sentencing judge wrongly treated Murray’s non-use of a knife as a mitigating factor.
The court accepted that treating the absence of knife use as mitigation was an error of principle. It concluded, however, that this had little likely effect on the discount and was not enough to justify intervention. The judges found the five-year headline sentence for violent disorder was at the lenient end of the trial judge’s discretion but was not itself an error of principle.
They said the guilty pleas retained value because an intention to plead had been signalled well before the trial date, and the victims did not have to give evidence or face cross-examination. They also considered the evidence of Murray’s recovery from drug use and rehabilitation substantial. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to give a generous discount and suspend part of the remaining sentence to support continued rehabilitation. The DPP’s application was dismissed; the court did not alter the Circuit Court sentences.