The Court of Appeal has dismissed M.J. Walsh’s appeal against the severity of a six-year effective prison sentence for two assaults committed in 2011 against separate victims.
Walsh had pleaded guilty to two counts under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act. At Clonmel Circuit Court in December 2012, Judge Teehan imposed three and a half years for the first assault and four years for the second, to be served consecutively. He suspended the final 18 months on Walsh entering a bond to keep the peace, leaving an effective sentence of six years.
The first assault happened in early July 2011. The court heard that the victim, identified as Mr Butler, was knocked to the ground and kicked more than four times. He lost consciousness and was taken to Clonmel Hospital, then referred to Cork University Hospital the next day because a fractured jaw was suspected. The fracture was not found. He also described ongoing fear and anxiety, and had about €300 in out-of-pocket expenses for which, the judgment said, no compensation had been offered.
The second assault took place in early November 2011. Mr O’Dwyer was knocked down and kicked and punched in the head. He said Walsh stamped on his ankle as he tried to escape, causing a fracture in which bone pierced the skin. Walsh did not accept that account, although the Court of Appeal noted he had not addressed the allegation when giving evidence at sentence. O’Dwyer required surgery involving plates and screws. The injury also meant he missed four job interviews and could not take up an offer to join Tipperary’s senior hurling panel.
Walsh argued that the sentencing judge should have treated the offences as mid-range rather than at the upper end of seriousness, and had failed to address all mitigating factors. The appeal court rejected both arguments. It said the violence and unprovoked nature of the attacks supported the judge’s assessment, and a sentencing judge was not required to mention each aggravating or mitigating factor individually where the evidence had just been heard.
The court also rejected the challenge to consecutive sentences. It said the assaults involved separate incidents and victims, and that concurrent terms would not have served the interests of justice. The court observed that judges should give notice when considering consecutive sentences so parties can make submissions on the totality principle. However, Walsh’s counsel had not made a specific complaint that he was denied an opportunity to address the issue.
The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and dismissed the appeal.