Director of Public Prosecutions v Szopa

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Birmingham P.
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IECA 330
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: [111/22]

In the Matter of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993

Between

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

and

Saturnin Szopa

Respondent

[2022] IECA 330

The President

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

[111/22]

THE COURT OF APPEAL

JUDGMENT of the Court ( ex tempore) delivered on the 7 ^th day of November 2022 by Birmingham P.

Introduction

1 . This is an application brought by the Director pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to review a sentence on grounds of undue leniency. The principles that are applicable to such reviews are now, at this stage, not in dispute. They are not in dispute between the parties today, and in truth, they have not been in dispute since the first such case came before the Court in DPP v. Byrne [1995] ILRM 279. The sentence sought to be reviewed is one of four years imprisonment with the final two and a half years of the sentence suspended, the sentence dating from 6 ^th October 2021, that was imposed on 18 ^th day of May 2022. The sentence was imposed in respect of a count of assault causing harm, contrary to s. 3(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, as amended. The Circuit Court was invited to deal with the matter on a full facts basis, and the full facts involved breaches of a safety order, contrary to s. 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”) on three occasions and these matters were taken into consideration. The dates of the safety order breaches were 27 ^th July 2021, 19 ^th September 2021 (the date of the substantive offence) and 2 ^nd October 2021.

Background

2 . The matter particularly in issue related to events that occurred on 19 ^th September 2021. On that occasion, despite the existence of a safety order, the respondent came to the house where the complainant was living, which was at that point in time the joint family home. It is noteworthy that the complainant has since moved out; she has obtained another address, has sought and obtained a barring order, and is receiving support from relevant services.

3 . Initially on the occasion in question, the respondent verbally abused the complainant. He then pushed her to the floor, grabbed her left foot, raised it, and twisted her left leg and foot, and when it was at that angle, having been twisted, jumped on the leg, causing extreme pain. Though the complainant did not realise it at the time, her leg was broken. However, she managed it, and the complainant struggled on to 8 ^th October 2021, when she finally sought medical attention. At that stage, the injury was dealt with by way of open reduction and internal fixation surgery, with screws and a plate being inserted into her foot. It was the situation that the leg had been broken.

Personal Circumstances of the Respondent

4 . In terms of the respondent's background and personal circumstances, he was 47 years of age at the time of the sentence hearing. He had previous convictions under the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended, but more relevantly, he had one for breach of a safety order in respect of the same complainant, which was dealt with by way of a fine and the imposition of a two month sentence, suspended.

5 . The sentencing Court heard that the respondent had a good work history, and there was an extremely positive reference from a former employer, which referred to fact that the respondent had worked for a number of years, initially as an agricultural worker on an organic farm, before being promoted to farm foreman. The reference was by any standard very positive indeed. The sentencing Court also heard that the respondent has two daughters, their mother being the complainant in this case. They were aged nine years and twenty-two years, and at the time of the sentence hearing, the respondent was a grandfather. The...