The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a four-year sentence, with the final year suspended, for assault causing harm to a hospital patient. It found no error in principle and held that the sentence fell within the sentencing judge’s discretion.
The sentence followed the appellant’s guilty plea to assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The Circuit Criminal Court imposed it on 17 December 2018, consecutive to a separate nine-month sentence for burglary. The burglary sentence was not appealed.
The assault took place outside James Connolly Hospital on 13 August 2017. The victim, who was an in-patient, told the sentencing court that the appellant attacked her after asking, “what did you say to my fella?” The victim described being kicked repeatedly and suffering injuries that included lacerations around her eye requiring stitches and an orbital fracture. She also described ongoing effects on her health and personal life.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge should not have set the headline sentence at the five-year maximum, given that she was unarmed and the assault was not premeditated. The Court of Appeal said the judge had not imposed the maximum: five years was the pre-mitigation headline sentence, which was reduced to four years, with one year suspended.
The appeal court said the injuries, the location, the “ferocious and lengthy nature” of the attack, and the fact that the appellant was on bail for other offences justified the headline sentence. It distinguished a case cited by the appellant involving a single blow to a medical worker.
The appellant also argued that the judge had given too little weight to mitigation, including reports from the Probation and Welfare Service and a psychologist, her guilty plea and remorse, and her difficult background. The appeal court said the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors. It noted that the appellant’s rehabilitation prospects were reflected in the suspended year, and that the sentences had been structured with the burglary sentence in mind to account for totality.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the sentencing judge had given sufficient credit for relevant mitigation and that the sentence was within her discretion.