DPP v Joseph Griffiths
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IECA 228 |
| Docket Number | Record Number: 181/19 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
[2021] IECA 228
McCarthy J.
Kennedy J.
Donnelly J.
Record Number: 181/19
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Making a threat with a syringe – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Griffiths, pleaded guilty to a count of making a threat with a syringe contrary to s. 6 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against sentence. He argued that the judge erred in placing the offence on the mid-range. The argument was advanced that the victims were not vulnerable individuals. The second argument advanced concerned the weight permitted for the mitigating factors. It was submitted that the judge ought to have suspended a portion of the sentence.
Held by the Court that the nature of the threat was serious; there was an express threat that the victims would be infected with HIV. The Court noted that the security guards were attempting to carry out their job, in circumstances where there were a number of members of the public present; moreover, both men were concerned for their safety and were described by Gardaí as looking visibly shaken on their arrival. The Court accepted that this was an unwarranted and unprovoked attack. The Court was not persuaded that the judge erred in placing the offence in the mid-range and thus did not err in nominating a notional pre-mitigation sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The Court was satisfied that the judge erred in identifying the use of the syringe as an aggravating factor, as this aspect was a constituent element of the offence contrary to s. 6 of the 1997 Act. However, the Court did not believe this was an error of substance justifying intervention in the headline figure nominated. The Court held that mitigating factors were undoubtedly present, including the plea of guilty, the appellant’s addiction difficulties, his social issues, his efforts to become drug free and his past employment. The Court noted that in considering these factors the judge afforded a downward reduction of almost 25% which in the circumstances was entirely appropriate. The Court noted that the matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the appellant to engage with the probation service, which he failed to do save for one occasion. In those circumstances, it was difficult for the Court to see how suspending a portion of the sentence would have been appropriate in terms of incentivising his rehabilitation.
The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered (ex tempore) on the 5th day of March 2021 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.
This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to a count of making a threat with a syringe contrary to section 6 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. The appellant received a sentence of four years' imprisonment.
On the evening of the 28th August 2013 the appellant and his partner were drinking on the platform of the Heuston Luas Stop. They were drunk and disturbing other people waiting on the platform. Two security guards approached them and the appellant was asked to move on at which point the appellant became abusive and approached one of the security guards in a threatening manner. The appellant took a syringe from his trouser pocket, pointed it at the two security guards and uttered words to the effect that he was HIV positive and that he would stab them in the neck. The two security guards, fearing for their safety, backed off. The appellant turned his back on them at which point they brought him to the ground where they restrained him until the arrival of Gardaí.
At the time of sentence the appellant was 34 years old and living in homeless accommodation. He has a long history of drug abuse. He has previously self-detoxed from heroin and was being maintained on 100 mls of methadone.
The appellant has 18 previous convictions including a conviction for possession of knives and other articles from 2011.
A probation report was prepared for the sentencing court. The probation officer noted that the appellant had attended one appointment but had failed to keep a second appointment and that he had not been contactable thereafter. Her risk assessment placed the appellant at a high risk of reoffending. The probation officer expressed the view that the appellant's lack of engagement was concerning as maybe being suggestive of an unwillingness to engage with services to address the identified risk factors.
In sentencing the appellant the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwich Project Holdings Ltd v Cronin
...refined over time by subsequent judgments of this Court, some of which were reviewed in Byrne & Anor. v. Bank of Scotland plc. & Anor. [2021] IECA 228. Of particular note is the judgment of Collins J. in Betty Martin Financial Services Limited v. EBS DAC [2019] IECA 327 where he cautioned a......