The Director of Public Prosecutions v Mountassir

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IECA 317
• Docket Number: Record No: 9/2024

In the Matter of An Application Pursuant to Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993

Between/

The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Applicant

and

Soufiane Mountassir

Respondent

[2024] IECA 317

Edwards J.

Kennedy J.

MacGrath J.

Record No: 9/2024

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Appeal of sentence - unduly leinent sentence - mitigation

Facts: The Director of Public Prosecutions brought an application pursuant to s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 ("the Act of 1993") seeking as review of the sentences imposed on Mr. Soufiane Mountassir the repondent, by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 21st Devember 2022 on unduly leniency grounds The respondent faced sentences on the following two counts; (i) false imprisonment contrary to s.15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 ("the Act of 1997"); (ii) assault causing harm, contrary to s.3 of the Act of1997.

The Directior brought this current application on the following grounds; "(1)failing to nominate a headline sentence which adequately reflecting the very serious aggravating factors in the case; (2) Failing to impose a sentence which adequately reflected the very serious aggravating factors in the case; (3) Placing undue emphasis on the matigating factors in the case, in particular the accused's plea of guilty in circumstances where he was caught red handed and the accused'd personal circumstance given the absence of reliable information in relation of some".

The Respondent allegedly forced the victim into the boot of his car for approximately 10 minutes while being transported to another location. After the transportation, the Respondent began assulting the victim including punching her in the face and hitting her head off the dashboard, gear stick, steering wheel and passenger door. The incident lasted one hour and forty minutes.

The Applicant submittted that the sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court was unduly lenient and departed from what was normal, and the neither the nominal sentence of five years nor the ultimate sentence of three years' imprisonment reflects the aggravated nature of the offence. The Applicant relied on a number of cases including DPP v Maguire [2018] IECA 71. DPP v Dowdall [2018] IECA 122 and DPP v Redmond [2001] 3 LR 390. The Applicant further submitted "that while a review of comparator case in false imprisonment case indicated that there is, indeed, a broad range of offending, it is clear that the offence must necessarily regarded as serious".

The Respondent submitted that the judged imposed a "carefully considered and thought out and structured sentence". The judge assessed the factors and the circumstances, and imposed the appropriate sentence regarding the offences before her and the relevant circumstances of the accused. The Respondent had a number of cases including; DPP v Stephen Connor [2020] IECA 255; DPP v Sutton [2020] IECA 280; DPP v Matthew Kelly [2019] IECA 11. The Judge noted that the Kelly case was included for its possible relevance to the assaults but there was no false imprisonment in that case.

Having considered each case that was submitted by both parties as well as their submissions, the court agreed with the applicant and held that the headline sentence was too low. The assessment of the sentencing court should have imposed a headline of sentence in the range between seven and nine years for the false imprisonment charge. The court discounted the headline sentence by two and half years to take account of the mitigating and personal circumstances of the respondent. This resulted in an ultimate sentence of five and a half years from the date the sentence was imposed.

Sentence reduced

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 19 ^th day of December, 2024 .

Introduction

1 . This is an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (i.e., “the applicant” or “the Director”) pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (“the Act of 1993”) seeking a review of the sentences imposed on Mr. Soufiane Mountassir (i.e., “the respondent”) by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 21 ^st of December 2022 on grounds that they were unduly lenient.

2 . The respondent had faced sentencing on two counts, viz:

• (i) Count no. 1: false imprisonment, contrary to s. 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 (“the Act of 1997”);

• (ii) Count no. 2: assault causing harm, contrary to s. 3 of the Act of 1997.

3 . In respect of Count no. 1, the respondent was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, which was to date from the 13 ^th of November 2022.

4 . In respect of Count no. 2, the sentencing court ordered that this was to be taken into consideration with Count no. 1.

5 . The basis on which the Director brings her present application is set out in her Notice of Application for Review of Sentence dated the 11 ^th of January 2024. The grounds set forth therein provide:

• 1. “Failing to nominate a headline sentence which adequately reflected the very serious aggravating factors in the case.

• 2. Failing to impose a sentence which adequately reflected the very serious aggravating factors in the case.

• 3. Placing undue emphasis on the mitigating factors in the case, in particular the accused's plea of guilty in circumstances where he was caught red handed and the accused's personal circumstances given the absence of reliable information in relation to same”.

Factual Background

6 . At the sentencing hearing of the 22 ^nd of November 2023, a Garda Conall Walsh gave evidence in relation to the factual background to the respondent's offending.

7 . On the 13 ^th of November 2022, the injured party, a Ms. Malone, was in a relationship with the respondent which she described as “ moving pretty fast”. The respondent had moved in with her and her son from a previous relationship.

8 . On the night of the offence, Ms. Malone and the respondent went into Dublin city centre, and as they were walking in a lane off Dame Street the respondent made a remark to Ms. Malone that “ I could have any woman”, and he then approached two women and as he did so further commented to Ms. Malone that he could have them because “ they are more beautiful than you”. Ms. Malone responded that she could just go back to her ex. She then asked him to leave and began walking off. However, the respondent followed her. The dispute progressed, and before they reached the parked car in which they had travelled together into the city, Ms. Malone sat down on a wall, whereupon the respondent slapped her across the face with an open hand, knocking her glasses from her face.

9 . A male member of the public who witnessed the incident called the respondent a “ scumbag” for hitting the victim, and Ms. Malone intervened and told the man “ Thank you but just leave it”, as she did not want to escalate the situation.

10 . The respondent then grabbed Ms. Malone with force and led her back towards her car with a good grip. The respondent forced her into the boot of the vehicle and her face was smacked forcibly off the boot by him. Ms. Malone then noticed she had blood all over her hand and realised it was coming from her nose. It was later established that this occurred on St Audeon's Terrace, which is off St Audeon's Street in Dublin city.

11 . The victim claimed that she could not remember exactly what the respondent was saying to her “ but it was controlling”. She was in the boot for approximately 10 minutes while the respondent drove to a different location. The respondent then stopped the car, went to the boot, opened it, physically grabbed Ms. Malone and manhandled her out of the boot, and then forced her into the passenger seat of the car. It was later established from an independent witness that the location where this occurred was in the Blackhall Street area of the city.

12 . The respondent then began punching her in the face, and progressed to grabbing her by her hair and smacking her head off the dashboard, gear stick, steering wheel, and passenger door. Ms. Malone indicated that this happened on multiple occasions. She begged the respondent to stop “ but he didn't care and he didn't stop”.

13 . The respondent started driving again and he was mounting footpaths as he kept punching the victim. He then parked up in the Grangegorman area of the city (where the gardaí ultimately found them) and he continued to punch her. The respondent told the victim to wipe the blood off her face. She did not know when he was going to stop hitting her and until the gardaí arrived she did not think he was going to stop, and she was concerned that he was going to kill her. She indicated that nothing she said was effective to stop him from punching her.

14 . At one stage the respondent punched the windscreen of the car, breaking the windscreen, which damage was observed by the gardaí on their arrival.

15 . The respondent ripped the victim's shirt and kept punching her in the stomach and ribs. He also ripped a necklace from her neck and a watch from her arm. He warned her in a threatening manner not to get out of the car. She was fearful and felt trapped because he had hit her so many times in the face and had also winded her. She was in fear for her life. The respondent had parked the car in a place she described as being dark, where no-one was around, and she felt the respondent had gone there in order to “ do damage to her”.

16 . The incident had lasted one hour and forty minutes in total.

17 . The sentencing court heard that several members of the public had witnessed aspects of what had occurred and had made reports.

18 . There was evidence that at around 1 am on the date in question, a gentleman contacted An Garda Síochána and reported that he had heard a woman shouting on the street outside his home, and further had observed a man, believed by gardaí to have been the respondent,...