The Court of Appeal has dismissed Craig Keogh’s appeal against a three-year custodial sentence for assault causing harm, finding no error of principle in the net term imposed.
Keogh had pleaded guilty and was convicted on 4 November 2014 of one count of assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Trim Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him on 17 February 2015. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which delivered its judgment on 13 June 2016.
The judgment said the assault occurred at the Palace Nightclub on Ludlow Street in Navan on 7 August 2011. Ian Curran and his wife were near the bar when they saw Keogh dancing suggestively near her and rubbing against her. After Mrs Curran pushed him away and he returned, Curran stepped between them. Keogh then bit Curran on the cheek, causing an extensive injury that required hospital treatment.
Curran was left with a scar that caused him acute embarrassment. For several weeks he feared he might have contracted HIV or hepatitis and that an infection could be passed to his wife or young child. The judgment said he was eventually given the all-clear and that the incident continued to have a significant effect on him and his family.
Keogh’s appeal did not challenge the three-year headline sentence. His counsel argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to a probation and welfare report, Keogh’s cooperation and admissions, remorse and early guilty plea, and evidence about Curran’s physical injuries at the time of sentencing. The prosecution submitted that the judge’s express references to mitigating factors showed they had been taken into account.
The sentencing judge had described the assault as being in the higher range of gravity and referred to Keogh’s guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, work history, rehabilitation efforts and personal circumstances. The probation report, dated 16 February 2015, assessed his risk of reoffending within 12 months as moderate. He had 12 previous convictions, including one for assault causing harm in 2009.
The Court of Appeal said sentencing judges should ordinarily identify the appropriate sentence for the offence before reducing it for mitigating factors, so the sentence and any credit are clear. It said that had not happened here. However, it concluded that three years was not unduly harsh for the assault and its consequences, and said that without mitigation a four-year sentence would have been appropriate. The appeal was dismissed.