Judgment: 2012-02-27 · Court archive

Court of Criminal Appeal reduces two sentences after Ballinrobe assaults

The court re-sentenced three men convicted over two attacks in August 2009, retaining consecutive terms for the separate incidents while reducing James Paul and Edward Sweeney’s sentences.

Court of Criminal Appeal · [2012] IECCA 62

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Edward Sweeney
  • Patrick Sweeney (Appellant)
  • John Reddington
  • Jonathan O’Malley
  • Patrick Lydon
What

The court re-sentenced three men convicted over two attacks in August 2009, retaining consecutive terms for the separate incidents while reducing James Paul and Edward Sweeney’s sentences.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballinrobe
  • New Street
  • Neale Road
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 22 October 2010

    The appeals concerned sentences imposed by the Circuit Court on 22 October 2010. The three men had pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing harm. James Paul and Patrick were also convicted of violent disorder over the first incident; Edward was convicted of assault causing serious harm. All three appealed the severity of their sentences.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

For James Paul, the appeal court said the sentencing judge should not have concluded that he used a Stanley knife to slash O’Malley without a separate hearing on that disputed question. It also said the judge had not given sufficient weight to the fact that no one identified James Paul as kicking Reddington while he was on the ground. The court reduced the violent-disorder sentence from four years to three, and set concurrent two-year sentences for the two assaults at Neale Road, consecutive to the first sentence. The final year of the assault sentence was suspended for one year, subject to keeping the peace and good behaviour on a €100 bond.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentences of James Paul and Edward Sweeney for assaults during two incidents in Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, while affirming Patrick Sweeney’s sentences apart from changing the suspension period on the final year.

The appeals concerned sentences imposed by the Circuit Court on 22 October 2010. The three men had pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing harm. James Paul and Patrick were also convicted of violent disorder over the first incident; Edward was convicted of assault causing serious harm. All three appealed the severity of their sentences.

The judgment describes the first incident as taking place on New Street, where John Reddington was punched and kicked. The second occurred at Neale Road at least 30 minutes later. Jonathan O’Malley and Patrick Lydon were attacked, kicked and cut with a knife. The court said the incidents were separated enough in time and place to justify consecutive sentences.

For James Paul, the appeal court said the sentencing judge should not have concluded that he used a Stanley knife to slash O’Malley without a separate hearing on that disputed question. It also said the judge had not given sufficient weight to the fact that no one identified James Paul as kicking Reddington while he was on the ground. The court reduced the violent-disorder sentence from four years to three, and set concurrent two-year sentences for the two assaults at Neale Road, consecutive to the first sentence. The final year of the assault sentence was suspended for one year, subject to keeping the peace and good behaviour on a €100 bond.

Edward’s sentence for assault causing serious harm was reduced from six years to four. The court imposed concurrent two-year terms for the Neale Road assaults, consecutive to the four-year term. The last year of the assault sentence was suspended for one year on the same stated conditions and bond.

Patrick’s four-year violent-disorder sentence and concurrent two-year sentences for the Neale Road assaults were affirmed. The court changed the suspension period for the final year to one year, subject to keeping the peace and good behaviour on a €100 bond.

The judgment records that the original Circuit Court sentences had included suspended portions and says the appeals court was re-sentencing the men. Its orders set the terms and suspension conditions stated above; it does not report the men’s release dates or the later outcome of their sentences.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review