The Court of Appeal has dismissed Graham Meagher’s appeal against his sentence for causing serious harm, leaving in place an eight-year prison term with the final two years suspended. The net custodial term is six years.
Meagher pleaded guilty and was convicted at Clonmel Circuit Criminal Court on 12 November 2015 of one count of causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He was sentenced on 10 May 2016. The appeal court delivered its judgment on 11 May 2018.
The court heard that the assault took place on 12 June 2014 at Kilcaroon, Cloghwen, County Tipperary. Meagher, then 18, believed that personal property, including his phone, had been stolen. He struck Mr P.J. Kelly several times, first with a fire shovel and then with a poker stand. Kelly suffered a catastrophic brain injury and requires continuous care.
Meagher challenged the sentencing judge’s decision to place the offence in the high range of gravity and argued that the judge had not given enough weight to his youth and other mitigating circumstances. These included his guilty plea, lack of previous convictions for violence, difficult personal circumstances, addiction problems, family support and employment prospects. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered those matters, including Meagher’s age and the claimed provocation.
The appeal court said the offence’s violence and its lasting consequences for Kelly made it a very serious assault. It agreed that the case belonged in the very high range and that a headline sentence of ten years was appropriate. It also concluded that the sentencing judge had expressly considered Meagher’s youth and had accepted provocation as a factor when setting the sentence.
The court said a belief that Kelly had stolen Meagher’s phone and wallet could not justify the violence. It observed that any historical provocation could hardly amount to a legal defence or a sentencing factor in circumstances where the assault followed Meagher waking after a night’s sleep. The court nevertheless noted that the sentencing judge had taken provocation into account.
Finding the six-year net custodial term to be within the sentencing judge’s discretion and identifying no error of principle, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.