Judgment: 2019-06-24 · Court archive

Court of Appeal increases sentence for serious knife assault

The court found the original sentence unduly lenient, citing excessive mitigation and insufficient evidence to justify suspending two years.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
  • Jamie Coughlan (Respondent)
  • Kim Wall
What

The court found the original sentence unduly lenient, citing excessive mitigation and insufficient evidence to justify suspending two years.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

A jury found Coughlan guilty in February 2018 of causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The offence arose from a knife assault on Wall at the home they shared on 1 July 2017. The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of seven-and-a-half years, reduced it by 18 months to six years, then suspended the final two years for two years after release, subject to probation supervision and other conditions.

The Court of Appeal increased the sentence imposed on Jamie Coughlan for causing serious harm to Kim Wall, replacing a six-year term with the final two years suspended with a sentence of six-and-a-half years, with the final six months suspended.

In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2019, the court allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence as unduly lenient. It quashed the original sentence and resentenced Coughlan. The suspended portion remains subject to the conditions imposed by the sentencing court.

A jury found Coughlan guilty in February 2018 of causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The offence arose from a knife assault on Wall at the home they shared on 1 July 2017. The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of seven-and-a-half years, reduced it by 18 months to six years, then suspended the final two years for two years after release, subject to probation supervision and other conditions.

The appeal court said the headline sentence was within the sentencing judge’s proper range. It agreed, however, that the personal circumstances relied on in mitigation justified no more than a 12-month reduction. The 18-month reduction was excessive and an error of principle, the court said.

The judges also found there was not enough evidence to support suspending a full third of the six-year post-mitigation sentence to encourage rehabilitation. The sentencing judge had evidence that Coughlan was using education and training facilities in prison, but no track record of achievement in those areas. The appeal court said a modest suspension was justified, noting that Coughlan was doing well in prison and had taken steps including anger-management courses.

The court said the original sentence was significantly outside the norm because of those errors and was therefore unduly lenient. It set a new headline term of seven-and-a-half years, reduced it by 12 months to six-and-a-half years, and suspended the final six months on the same conditions imposed below.

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