Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosections -v- Kelly [2015] IECA 113 (04 June 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2015/CA113.html
Cite as: [2015] IECA 113
[New search] [Help]
Judgment
| ||||||||||||||||||
THE COURT OF APPEAL Neutral Citation Number: [2015] IECA 113 Sheehan J. Mahon J. Edwards J. 58CJA/12 In the matter of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions Appellant v
Anthony Kelly Respondent Judgment of the Court delivered on the 4th day of June 2015, by Mr. Justice Sheehan 1. This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, for review of the sentence imposed on the respondent on the 10th February, 2012, on the ground of undue leniency. 2. The respondent was sentenced to four years imprisonment with the final two years of the said sentence suspended for a period of six years in respect of an offence of causing serious harm. The offence of serious harm involved an unprovoked slashing of the face of a 21 year old man by means of a knife causing permanent facial disfigurement to the victim. 3. In order to consider this application it is necessary to set out the background to the offence. Background
2. That on the 14th May, 2011, the respondent robbed a second male of a chain. 3. That on the 14th May, 2011, the respondent intentionally or recklessly caused serious harm to a third male. 4. That on the 14th May, 2011, the respondent stole €5 in cash from a female. 6. With regard to the next count, at about 2.40 am on the night of Saturday the 14th May, 2011, another male was walking to his apartment in Limerick when he was approached by the respondent who he believed was in possession of a knife. The respondent pulled a chain from this man’s neck and fled into 23 Catherine Street. Shortly after this attack, another male was returning to his hotel in Limerick city centre when he was stopped by the respondent. The respondent tried to take money from his pockets and so he pushed the respondent away. At the door of the hotel the respondent slashed this man across the face with a blade inflicting a serious laceration to the left side of his face under the area of the eye at the upper part of the left cheek. An employee of the hotel followed the respondent and observed him becoming involved in an altercation with two ladies at the junction of Catherine Street and Cecil Street. One of these ladies who had confronted the respondent recognised him as the man who had grabbed €5 from her earlier that night at 1.30 am. The hotel employee observed the respondent enter a house with a yellow door which was later noted to be 23 Catherine Street. The gardaí arrived and the respondent was arrested in the bathroom of this apartment with a blood stained knife in his possession. Impact on the victim Personal circumstances of the respondent 9. The Court was told that the respondent was 21 years of age and that at the time these offences occurred he was heavily under the influence of intoxicants. 10. Counsel for the DPP argued that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravating factors. In particular the applicant submitted that the sentencing judge failed to reflect the significant aggravating factors, namely the use of the knife, the nature of the injury inflicted and the lack of any provocation. Counsel relied upon two judgments in this regard:- The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Black (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 31st July, 2009) and The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Fitzgibbon [2014] 2 ILRM 116. Counsel for the DPP also submitted that given the failure by the respondent to abide by the terms of an earlier suspended sentence it was an error in principle to impose a partially suspended sentence again. 11. Opposing the application, counsel for the respondent noted that the sentencing judge fully took into account the aggravating factors arising from this offence and referred to “an aggravation of the fact” in that the respondent was “on a rampage”, that the attack was unprovoked, that the victim was left with a permanent scar and that the offence had been committed whilst the respondent was subject to a suspended sentence. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the sentencing judge accurately took into account the mitigating factors including the respondent’s plea of guilty. Counsel also submitted that it was open to the sentencing judge to suspend the second half of the sentence as in the course of the plea in mitigation reference was made to two initiatives which might assist the respondent’s rehabilitation and two documentary proposals were furnished on his behalf to that effect. Whilst counsel for the respondent acknowledged that the sentence imposed was a lenient sentence, it was his submission that it was not unduly lenient. 12. In the course of his sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge noted that at the time of the offences, the respondent “went on a rampage, if it can be called that, on two days, on the 13th and 14th of May, 2011, and he appeared to be picking his victims at random in unprovoked attacks. And in the case of the unfortunate [victim] he has left him with a permanent scar on his left cheek which he’ll have to live with for the rest of his life”. 13. This Court has considered the submissions of both parties and accepts that the Court should afford great weight to the sentencing judge’s reasons for imposing sentence and notes the care taken by the sentencing judge in this case. 14. This Court is, however, of the view that the aggravating factors were not given their due weight. The injured party received a serious facial wound leaving him permanently disfigured. Notwithstanding the clear intention of the sentencing judge to incentivise the respondent’s rehabilitation, this Court is of the view that the gravity of the offending is not adequately reflected in a sentence that only requires the respondent to spend two years in custody. Accordingly, the Court holds that the sentence in this case represents a significant departure from what would normally be an appropriate sentence and holds that the sentence was unduly lenient. |