About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] IECA 114
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe

Delivering judgment in the case, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe held that there was no error by the sentencing judge in nominating a headline sentence of ten years, given the highly aggravating factors associated with the assault. Further, it was held that the difference in sentence between the two men was not impermissible having regard to the principles in DPP v. Davis [2022] IECA 57.

Background

In August 2016, the victim was out with a number of friends in Fogarty’s Bar in Ashbourne, County Meath. The appellants were also at the bar for a night out with friends. At approximately 2am, a verbal interaction took place which was not friendly in nature, but which did not result in immediate violence.

The victim then left with his friends to get some food. CCTV footage showed the appellants and their group emerging from some trees. A member of the appellant’s group became abusive towards the victim’s group. The victim reacted by moving towards the appellant’s group with his friends.

The victim was quickly surrounded and attempted to retreat through the main gates of the local Garda station. However, the appellant’s group caught him and beat him. He was kicked in the face and neck and stamped on by the appellants and two accomplices. Despite losing consciousness and being covered in blood, the assailants continued to assault the victim.

Several other individuals were also punched and kicked as they attempted to help the victim. The victim was taken to hospital where he was found to have suffered brain contusions and haemorrhaging. He could not return to work for months after the attack, had developed hearing issues and lost his sense of smell. Another woman also suffered injuries to her hand, elbow and face.

Both the appellants pleaded guilty to the offences of violent disorder and assault causing harm in the Circuit Criminal Court. The first appellant, Stephen Coyle, had 62 previous convictions, mostly for road traffic offences. However, he had not come to the attention of gardaí since 2012.

The second appellant, Leroy Howard, had 70 previous convictions. Again, most were for road traffic offences, although Mr Howard also had several drug possession convictions and was serving a sentence at the time of the hearing.

The sentencing judge identified a headline sentence of 10 years for the violent disorder charge, which was the maximum sentence in law. The court determined that the savagery and ferocity of the attack was “shocking in the extreme”.

The court held that it was a particularly vicious assault, noting that the attack continued for about five minutes and while the victim was unconscious. The fact that the victim was stamped on while lying on the ground was an “appalling highly aggravating factor”.

In mitigation, the court had regard to factors such as the early pleas of guilt, the remorse for the attack and Mr Coyle’s general good behaviour since 2012. Mr Coyle had also engaged in psychological services while in prison. A distinction was drawn between Mr Coyle and Mr Howard on the basis that Mr Howard was serving a custodial sentence at the time of sentence.

Accordingly, the court imposed sentences of seven years and six months imprisonment for the violent disorder offence, with the final 24 months of Mr Coyle’s sentence being suspended. A four-year sentence for the assault causing harm offence was to run concurrently for both appellants. Finally, the sentence for Mr Howard was to run concurrently with his current sentence for drug offences.

Court of Appeal

Both appellants appealed the decision on the grounds that it was unduly severe. It was said that the sentencing judge erred in principle by nominating a headline sentence of 10 years and that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors in the case. In particular, the appellants relied on the lack of premeditation, lack of weapons and the short duration of the assault. The appellants referred to comparator cases where weapons were used but a lower headline sentence was identified.

Counsel for the DPP noted that there had been interactions between the parties earlier in the night and that the lack of weapons was merely incidental having regard to the stamping and kicking that occurred. Further, the DPP took serious issue with the contention that the assault was short in duration, with five minutes being a significant period to be beaten.

Mr Justice Woulfe held that there was no error in principle by the sentencing judge in the headline sentence. The case involved “a very serious offence” and the nature and level of violence was a “highly aggravating factor” on the evidence before the judge. The fact that a different court may have imposed a slightly lower sentence did not mean that the sentencing judge was incorrect, the court held.

Considering the comparator cases, the court held that consistency in sentence was a desirable objective. However, the outcome of comparator cases, which involved different factors, could not be decisive in the present case. This was particularly so where the headline sentence was one that was open to the sentencing judge having regard to all the material factors.

Dealing with the disparity of treatment between the appellants, the court noted that co-offenders should generally receive the same or similar sentences unless there were appreciable differences in culpability. Equally, an unduly lenient sentence for one accused was not a justifiable reason to interfere with a longer sentence if that was appropriate (DPP v. Davis).

Accordingly, the relatively lenient sentence imposed on Mr Howard by having his sentence run concurrently with his previous drug conviction was not a reason to reduce Mr Coyle’s sentence.

Conclusion

Both appeals were dismissed.

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stephen Coyle [2022] IECA 114