The Court of Appeal has replaced a wholly suspended four-year sentence for assault causing serious harm with a four-year term, suspending the final three years. The respondent must therefore serve one year in custody, subject to the terms of the order.
The judgment, delivered on 8 March 2022, arose from a review application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, alleging undue leniency. The respondent had pleaded guilty on the day of trial to assault causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him in July 2021 to four years, fully suspended, with conditions that included payment of €10,000 to the injured party within two years and a four-year peace bond. The judgment records that €5,000 had been paid at sentencing and the additional €10,000 had since been paid.
The assault happened in the early hours of 29 August 2016 near the old Tallaght village. The court said CCTV showed no apparent build-up of aggression before the respondent struck the injured party, Darren Darley, once. He fell unconscious and suffered a serious brain injury. He remained in a coma for two weeks and later described lasting health effects, including chronic headaches, blackouts, dizziness, and loss of taste and smell. His victim impact statement also described homelessness, difficulty working, and disruption to his relationship with his daughter.
The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of six and a half years and reduced it to four years after considering mitigation, including the respondent’s guilty plea, remorse, compensation, personal circumstances and apparent low risk of reoffending. The DPP argued on appeal that the plea came too late, the attack’s seriousness and effect on the injured party warranted greater weight, and the entire sentence should not have been suspended.
The Court of Appeal accepted that a portion of the sentence could be suspended, but held that the plea was entered only on the trial date, after the injured party had attended to give evidence. It considered the remorse and compensation less significant than the sentencing judge had, and said payment alone could not create an entitlement to a reduced sentence. The court concluded that there were no “special reasons of a substantial nature and particularly exceptional circumstances” to justify suspending the whole term.
It quashed the original sentence and re-sentenced the respondent to four years, suspending the final three on the same terms imposed by the Circuit Court.