Court of Appeal: Increased sentence for man who stabbed doctor with used needle

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] IECA 134
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy

Delivering judgment in the case, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy held that the one-year sentence was a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence having regard to the impact in the victim and the public policy objectives of protecting Frontline healthcare workers. The sentence was increased to three years’ imprisonment with the final six months suspended.

Background

In March 2020, the accused was found collapsed outside Pearse Street Garda Station. The man had suffered a seizure after taking heroine and benzodiazepines. He was assisted by passers-by and taking to St James’ Hospital for emergency treatment.

At the hospital, the accused behaved erratically by grabbing the treating doctor’s notes and saying that people were going to kill him. He was restrained by security before calming down. The treating doctor then attempted to take blood samples from the accused.

The doctor inserted a butterfly needle into the man’s wrist but the man removed the needle and charged at the doctor. A struggle ensued with both men falling to the ground. The doctor called out and was assisted by his colleagues, who helped to stop the attack. However, after the attack, it became apparent that the doctor had been stabbed by the accused three times in his shoulder and lower back.

The accused was arrested by Gardaí but was unfit to be interviewed immediately. On interview, the accused claimed that he did not remember the incident and that he was a heroine addict who only ever used clean needles. However, he accepted that the incident occurred and that the doctor would not have known that he used clean needles.

The accused was charged with assaulting a person providing medical service contrary to section 19(1) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. In September 2020, the accused pleaded guilty to the offence.

In a victim impact statement, the doctor stated that he was badly affected by the incident and gave up a career in emergency medicine due to anxiety from a possible re-occurrence of the incident. He also found it very hard to concentrate in the aftermath of the attack and described the event as “life changing.”

In mitigation, it was submitted that the accused had a drug addiction since 2013 but that he was drug-free for eight months prior to sentence. He also expressed his remorse for the offending.

The judge sentenced the accused to one year’s imprisonment for the offence. Credit was given for his early guilty plea. It was held that the accused was responsible for his own behaviour while intoxicated and that he would not have attacked the doctor if he had not “rendered himself insensible.” However, the court also took into account that the accused did not intend to attack anyone, had no memory of the incident and cooperated with the investigation.

The DPP appealed the sentence on the basis of undue leniency. It was said that the sentence did not properly reflect the seriousness of the offending and that an attack on medical staff was a highly aggravating factor. Further, it was said that undue weight was attached to the fact that the accused “probably did not intend” to attack the doctor.

Court of Appeal

In an ex tempore decision delivered in May 2022, Mr Justice Kennedy began by noting that an appellate court would not intervene with a sentence unless it constituted a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence. No headline sentence was nominated by the trial judge but this was not necessarily fatal to a given sentence.

The court held that the present case was “a serious case with serious consequences for the victim,” which was made worse by the fact that it was committed against a frontline healthcare worker. The court held that the Oireachtas had legislated for a greater maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment for such assaults.

The aggravating factors included that the accused charged the doctor and chased him down a corridor with the needle over his head. This was a “very frightening experience”. Further, the doctor sustained puncture wounds to his body and the event caused him to abandon his career.

The court stated that the offence was a crime of basic intent, meaning that it could not be brought into a lower range of sentences due to self-intoxication.

The court was satisfied that the one-year sentence was unduly lenient. In re-sentencing the accused, he was given credit for his guilty plea and his cooperation with gardaí. It was noted that the man had a “deep-seated drug addiction” who was currently taking a reduced methadone intake. The man had 72 previous convictions and had two children.

Conclusion

The court nominated a headline sentence of four years’ imprisonment. In light of the mitigating factors, the court reduced the sentence to three years. As the accused was making efforts to address his addiction, the court suspended the final six months of the sentence in order to incentivise rehabilitation.

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stephen Ennis [2022] IECA 134