The Court of Appeal has found that an 18-month prison sentence, suspended in full for an assault that caused permanent loss of vision in one eye, was unduly lenient when imposed. But the court dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and left the sentence in place, saying delay and the additional hardship of sending the respondent to prison now tipped the balance marginally in favour of maintaining the status quo.
Robert Jones had pleaded guilty to assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him on 24 February 2016 to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. The conditions included a €100 bond, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, and paying €8,000 compensation to the victim within four weeks. A separate charge of assault causing serious harm was discontinued by a nolle prosequi.
The Court of Appeal heard that in the early hours of 20 July 2014, at the Palace Night-club, Jones struck Brian Murphy in the face with a pint glass. The court said the incident caused scarring, permanent loss of sight in Murphy’s left eye and psychological trauma. He underwent five operations under general anaesthesia and would need at least one more. The account of whether Murphy had acted provocatively was disputed; the sentencing judge gave Jones the benefit of the doubt on provocation, while the appeal court said it could not justify the assault.
The DPP argued the original sentence gave too much weight to mitigation and did not reflect the violence, use of a weapon, lasting injury or need for general deterrence. Jones’s submissions cited his guilty plea, admissions, remorse, cooperation, previous good character, work and family circumstances, and the delay and hardship involved in changing the sentence.
The appeal court said the offence was very serious and that wholly suspending the sentence was not justified by sufficiently substantial and extraordinary circumstances. It said the original sentence represented a significant departure from the norm. The court also said that, in most cases of such serious violence, some custody would likely be required.
However, the appeal hearing came 13 months after the review was initiated, and more than two and a half years had passed since the offence. The court noted that Jones had not reoffended and was in employment. It concluded that the court’s finding of undue leniency was sufficient in the circumstances, and that custody was not necessary at this stage. It said that if it had sentenced Jones at first instance, it would have imposed 18 months to be served. The appeal was dismissed.