The Court of Appeal ruled that sentences imposed on Brian McLaughlin for assault causing harm and falsely imprisoning his then partner were unduly lenient. It quashed the original sentences and imposed a fresh three-year prison sentence, suspending the balance subject to supervision and other conditions.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Sheehan on 30 May 2016, concerned an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The original sentences were imposed after McLaughlin pleaded guilty at the Circuit Criminal Court in Letterkenny on 14 July 2015. He received three years for each offence, to run concurrently, with the final two and a half years suspended.
The offences happened in the early hours of 28 October 2013. The court’s account said McLaughlin punched Ms S, strangled her and forced her arm behind her back. She later woke on the sitting-room floor and called emergency services. Gardaí arrived but McLaughlin initially refused to let them in or release her. He was armed with knives before eventually releasing her at 4.10am. Medical evidence described severe soft-tissue injuries, mainly to her head, neck and torso, with facial swelling, bruising and significant pain.
The prosecution argued that the sentencing judge had given excessive weight to mitigation and had failed to account adequately for deterrence. McLaughlin’s counsel accepted that the sentences were lenient but argued they were not unduly lenient given his guilty plea and personal circumstances.
The Court of Appeal said the assault was unprovoked, took place in the victim’s home, caused serious injuries and terror, and was followed by prolonged false imprisonment aggravated by the brandishing of knives. It concluded that the sentences were unduly lenient in light of the injuries and circumstances, and quashed them.
In choosing the replacement sentence, the court also considered developments since the original sentencing. McLaughlin had been released from prison more than six months earlier and, according to a Probation Service report, had attended appointments and engaged with health, housing, training, employment and addiction services. The court said he appeared to be making progress and had put protective factors in place to reduce reoffending risk.
The court imposed a three-year prison sentence, taking account of time already served, and suspended the remaining balance. The suspension was conditional on a €100 bond, Probation Service supervision for the remainder of the suspended term, urine analysis when required by the service, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, and no contact with Ms S. The judgment does not specify the balance of the sentence remaining to be served.