DPP v O'Keeffe
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IECA 24 |
| Date | 18 December 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Appeal Number: 219/13 |
[2014] IECA 24
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal law - Assault causing harm - Seriousness of offence - Physical and psychological injuries of the victim - Appeal against severity of sentence - Whether error of principle - Mitigating factors
Facts The appellant, Alan O"Keefe, sought to appeal against severity of sentence. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with three years suspended, in respect of an offence of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. The appellant was involved in an unprovoked attack on a young man called Alan Hogan, in which the appellant used a glass which was smashed into Mr Hogan"s face, thereby causing him severe and permanent injury. The appellant claimed the learned trial judge erred in two main respects. It was alleged that in fixing the position of the offending conduct on the scale of seriousness appropriate to an s. 3 offence, he rated it too highly. It was also suggested that in imposing sentence the learned trial judge made insufficient allowance for the mitigating factors in the case, particularly the appellant"s personal circumstances, his efforts at rehabilitation, his relatively minor previous record and the fact that he had expressed remorse and had made available the sum of €15,000 by way of restitution. Quite apart from the physical injuries sustained by the victim, the young man in question has suffered very significant psychological injuries. He has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. He became depressed. He has found it difficult to move on from the incident. He still suffers from agitation and anxiety whenever he is in a crowded place.
Held The judge did not believe the learned trial judge was in error in rating the offending conduct at the higher end of the gravity spectrum. The facts of the case were extremely serious in the court"s view. It was a horrendous assault which left the injured party with devastating injuries. The judge concluded the seriousness of the offence was correctly rated and there was no error of principle. It was the court"s view and conclusion that the learned trial judge took into account and gave appropriate credit for everything that could have been said in favour of the appellant and he was afforded appropriate mitigation with regards such factors.
-The court found no error of principle in respect of sentence and affirmed the order of the learned Circuit judge and dismissed the application.
1. This is an appeal by the appellant, in this case Alan O'Keeffe, against the severity of a sentence of four years imprisonment, with one year of it suspended, imposed upon him at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court on 1 st October 2013 in respect of an offence of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
2. The assault in question arose out of an incident which occurred in the Anchor Bar in Dungarvan when the appellant was involved in an unprovoked attack on a young man called Alan Hogan, in which the appellant used a glass which was smashed into Mr. Hogan's face, thereby causing him severe and permanent injury.
3. The appellant was convicted by a jury on 10 th May 2013 and was subsequently sentenced by the learned sentencing judge on 1 st October 2013. The trial at which the appellant was convicted was a second trial. There had been an earlier trial at which the jury had disagreed.
4. The appeal is brought on the basis that the learned trial judge erred in principle in two main respects. It is alleged that in fixing the position of the offending conduct on the scale of seriousness appropriate to an s. 3 offence, he rated it too highly. It is also suggested that in imposing sentence the learned trial judge made insufficient allowance for the mitigating factors in the case, particularly the appellant's personal circumstances, his efforts at rehabilitation, his relatively minor previous record and the fact that he had expressed remorse and had made available the sum of €15,000 by way of restitution.
5. It is important to outline in a little more detail what were the facts of the case. The injured party, Mr. Hogan, was part of a group that was socialising with, and saying farewell to, one of their number who was about to go to Australia. They had been out for a meal and were having a few drinks after the meal and ended up at about 11 p.m. on the night in question, which was 10 th May 2008, in the Anchor Bar in Dungarvan. They had just arrived in the premises and were proceeding towards the bar. Now, the appellant was also present in the Anchor Bar and he was part of another group that were participating in a stag party. As the injured party's group entered the Anchor Bar it seems that somebody in that group may have brushed off a member of the other group. The injured party turned around and as he turned around he was suddenly, and without any provocation offered by him, struck with a glass in the face by the appellant. Although the details were somewhat vague, the evidence before the court indicated that there may have been a prior altercation of some sort involving other persons in the two respective groups, but if there had been it had had nothing to do with the injured party and he was not involved in any such incident. The learned trial judge characterised the attack on Mr. Hogan as unprovoked and the court is satisfied that that characterisation was justified on the evidence before the court.
6. The injured party suffered very significant injuries. One has only to look at the photograph that has been handed up in the course of the hearing this morning to realise the correctness of the learned trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial