Court of Appeal: Man who poured boiling water over pregnant girlfriend has sentence increased on appeal

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Background

In July 2015 while Mr Michael Lynch was living with the victim, Ms Tara Byrd, in Cork, he poured boiling water, to which he had first added sugar, from a kettle onto her left leg, causing her severe injury. At the time the complainant was four and a half months pregnant.

Ms Byrd suffered third degree burns to her leg and spent approximately ten days in hospital and underwent skin graft surgery. She has been left with severe scarring of her left leg.

Immediately following the incident the complainant told a number of people that she had spilled the boiling water over herself as she was making coffee.

Approximately four days after the incident, the complainant told her father that Mr Lynch had been responsible for the incident, whereupon the Gardaí were contacted.

When interviewed by the gardaí, Mr Lynch stated that the complainant had herself spilt the boiling water whilst making coffee.

In June 2016 at Cork Circuit Criminal Court, Mr Lynch was acquitted by a jury of making a threat to kill contrary to s. 5 of theNon-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, but was convicted of one count of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

Mr Lynch was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.

In the Court of Appeal, Mr Lynch appealed against his conviction, and the Director of Public Prosecutions sought a review of the sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 on the basis that the said sentence was unduly lenient.

All grounds of Mr Lynch’s appeal against his conviction were dismissed by the three-judge Court of Appeal.

The undue leniency application

Contending that the sentence was too lenient, the DPP sought to rely on two grounds of appeal:

The sentencing judge stated in the course of his sentencing judgment:-

“…on the scale of things and within the context of this being a serious offence, my view is that it resides between the mid to the higher end of the scale and before I take into account the personal and other circumstances of the offender, I am of the view that this matter would ordinarily attract a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment.”

Earlier in his judgment, the sentencing judge referred to the victim impact statement. He said “the pain truly must have been horrendous”. He went on to refer to the cosmetic blemish left as a consequence of the injury and the fact that the complainant had to undergo skin grafting for three degree burns.

Justice Mahon stated that Mr Lynch’s offence was “a particularly serious one” in that it was “a pre-mediated, callous and merciless assault on an innocent woman in a domestic setting. The fact that sugar was added to the water before it was boiled places the gravity of the offence at the very highest level as, in the circumstances, and in reality, it amounted to torture. In the court’s view, it warranted a headline sentence at the maximum (being five years), or certainly close to the maximum”.

The mitigating factors taken into account by the learned sentencing judge included Mr Lynch’s difficult personal circumstances and his relatively young age of 24.

In addition, Justice Mahon was critical of the fact that the sentencing judge “treated as a mitigating factor the fact that this offence was not committed while on bail in relation to another s. 3 assault conviction, in October 2013”.

Justice Mahon stated that “a previous conviction can never be a mitigating factor, whether or not committed while on bail, and will in many instances be an aggravating factor”.

In all the circumstances, “the sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment for this very grave offence was unduly lenient”

Justice Mahon was satisfied that the appropriate headline sentence was the maximum term of five years – but “with some reluctance, and giving Mr. Lynch greater benefit for the mitigating factors than perhaps they properly deserve”, suspended the final twelve months of that sentence.