DPP v Groome
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IECA 40 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record Number: 2/2021 |
[2023] IECA 40
The President.
McCarthy J.
Kennedy J.
Record Number: 2/2021
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Assault causing serious harm – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Groome, on the 21st December 2020, was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for an offence of assault causing serious harm contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 with an offence of criminal damage by arson taken into consideration. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against severity of sentence. It was submitted that the sentencing judge erred in failing to give appropriate credit to the mitigation advanced on behalf of the appellant. Attention was drawn to the appellant’s guilty plea which it was submitted in accordance with The People (DPP) v Melissa Whelan [2018] IECA 142 ought to have resulted in a sentence reduction of 25-30%, his admissions and cooperation with Gardaí, his cooperation with the prison service, his remorse and letter of apology, and his family circumstances. It was said that the plea, whilst a late one, was nonetheless of value. Further, it was submitted that in circumstances where the appellant had no serious previous convictions in relation to violent crimes, rehabilitation should have been to the forefront of the court’s mind. It was contended that there was no attempt by the court to incentivise the rehabilitation of the appellant by suspending a portion of the sentence. He complained that there was too great a disparity between the co-accused’s sentence and the sentence imposed on the appellant. The respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that the sentencing judge fully considered the mitigating factors, reduced the sentence accordingly and considered the issue of a suspended sentence.
Held by the Court that, in terms of reduction for mitigation, it was the position that the plea was very late, some years after the offending conduct, where the appellant absconded having taken a trial date and was ultimately the subject of an extradition, which he did not contest. The Court held that the judge was entitled to give less weight to that plea than might otherwise be the case. In the Court’s view, the five-year reduction for mitigation was entirely appropriate in the circumstances. The Court found that the judge properly considered the mitigation present and discounted accordingly. Regarding the issue of suspending a portion of the sentence in order to incentivise rehabilitation, the Court found that the judge considered the appellant capable of reform and specifically noted that as a factor in his sentencing remarks in the imposition of sentence. The Court did not find an error in that respect. On the issue of parity, the Court noted that the appellant was the older of the two accused, he drove the vehicle to and from the scene, he used the knife, he stabbed the injured party sixteen times and then poured petrol over him. Whilst it was a case of joint enterprise, it was clear to the Court that the co-accused played a lesser role. The Court noted that he was a juvenile and he indicated a plea in advance of trial. The Court noted that a headline sentence of eight years was nominated in his respect. The sentence ultimately imposed on him being a sentence of six and a half years with eighteen months suspended consecutive to a sentence which he was serving, the Court held that the totality principle was engaged. In the circumstances, the Court found no error in that regard.
The Court dismissed the appeal as it was not persuaded of any errors in principle.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered ( ex tempore) on the 30 th Day of January 2023 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.
. This is an appeal against severity of sentence. On the 21 st December 2020, the appellant was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for an offence of assault causing serious harm contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 with an offence of criminal damage by arson taken into consideration.
. At approximately 1:05am on the 7 th September 2015, two witnesses noticed that an old stone cottage in the village of Rhode, County Offaly was on fire. On entering the property, they found the injured party in a dog pen. It seems that the injured party had crawled into the pen in order to get some water in an effort to put out the fire.
. Emergency services were called, and the injured party was seen by a doctor at Tullamore Regional Hospital. He was then transferred to St James's Hospital and had six blood transfusions on the way to the hospital. A doctor at St James's outlined that the injured party had sustained sixteen stab wounds, including one to the heart cavity and that 96% of his total body surface area was covered in major burns. His injuries were described as life threatening.
. CCTV was harvested from numerous systems around Mullingar for the night in question. There was CCTV footage of the appellant in the forecourt of a garage purchasing a red jerry can and filling it with petrol. He also purchased two bottles of water. The clothing worn by the appellant in this footage, which included a tracksuit bottoms was found by An Garda Síochána on the roadside at the exit to the M4 at Kinnegad. A knife with bloodstains was retrieved from the tracksuit bottoms. The appellant's DNA profile was located on the inside of this item of clothing and the blood on the knife matched that of the injured party.
. The evidence disclosed that on the night of the 6 th September 2015, the appellant and a young male entered the injured party's home, confronted him and then the appellant stabbed him 16 times before throwing petrol over him. The co-accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial