The Court of Appeal has dismissed Wesley McDonald’s appeal against a four-year sentence for assault causing harm, leaving in place a sentence that requires him to serve three years in custody and suspends the final year on conditions.
The judgment was delivered ex tempore on 13 June 2016 by Mr Justice Sheehan, with Birmingham and Mahon JJ. The appeal followed McDonald’s conviction after a three-day trial at Tralee Circuit Court in June 2013. He was convicted of assaulting Edward Barry and causing him harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
The court’s account said Barry had gone to a laneway in Tralee at about 2am on 22 December 2012. Three men blocked his exit and asked him for money. As Barry tried to get past, he punched one of them and escaped. The judgment said McDonald, the man Barry had punched, followed and attacked him from behind. Barry received four stitches in hospital, suffered a deformity to his nose, and was unable to work for several weeks. The court also referred to a permanent scar below his eye.
McDonald argued that the sentencing judge had taken account of intimidation, an offence of which he had been acquitted. The Court of Appeal rejected that ground, finding the sentencing remarks made clear that the conviction was for assault causing harm alone.
He also argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient credit for mitigation, including his remorse, family circumstances and reported alcohol and drug problems. The appeal court said there was no evidence before the sentencing court beyond counsel’s submission to establish remorse, no evidence that McDonald took his responsibilities as a father seriously, and no evidence of significant addiction difficulties. It concluded there was no mitigation the judge could properly factor into the sentence. The suspended year, it said, properly reflected rehabilitation.
The court described the three-year custodial term as high given the offence and the injury arising from one blow. But it said McDonald’s previous convictions for personal violence were relevant to the headline sentence, and that Barry had suffered lasting injury and weeks away from work. The court found no error in the sentencing approach or sentence and dismissed the appeal.