Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against 13-year sentence for domestic violence assault causing serious harm.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Record Number: 085/2024 Neutral Citation Number [2025] IECA 270 Charleton J. Edwards J. Owens J.

Between/

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

RESPONDENT -AND-

A.M.

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Alexander Owens on the 7th day of November 2025.

1. This is an appeal by AM against severity of a sentence imposed on him by the Circuit Court on 10 May 2024. The main sentence was a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment with the final 2 years of that sentence suspended for 3 years from the date of his release on condition that he keep the peace and other conditions. Count 1 charged an offence of assault on AB causing serious harm which he committed on 5 November 2023. He pleaded guilty to that offence on 27 February 2024.

2. He also pleaded guilty to three other serious offences. These offences were false imprisonment of AB on a date in November 2023 (count 2), a threat to kill or cause serious harm to AB at that location on the same date (count 3) and an assault on YZ at that location on the same date (count 4). He received lesser terms of imprisonment for these offences. He committed these offences in furtherance of his assault on AB.

3. At the time when AM committed these offences he was on District Court bail, charged with an offence of breaching a safety order relating to AB.

4. These pleas were accepted on a “full facts” basis. Seven counts of offences by AM consisting of threats to kill or cause serious harm to AB in late October and early November 2023 were taken into consideration in sentencing. Seven counts of offences by AM arising from contraventions of a protection order, were also taken into consideration. These offences arose from the fact that these threats to kill involved communications prohibited by the protection order.

5. These offences were committed by AM using his mobile phone to threaten AM. He sent her text and WhatsApp messages in which he threatened to kill her and break her head open. These communications included derogatory comments.

6. The maximum custodial sentence for the offence of assault causing serious harm is imprisonment for life. The maximum custodial sentence for assault causing harm at the time of these offences was 10 years’ imprisonment. This had been increased from 5 years to 10 years with effect from 1 November 2023: see s.20 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 (the 2023 Act) and the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 (Commencement) (No. 2) Order 2023 (S.I. No.

525 of 2023). The maximum custodial sentence for a threat to kill or cause serious harm is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum custodial sentence for false imprisonment is imprisonment for life. The offence of breach of a protection order carries a maximum custodial sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

7. AM was born in 1992. He was 31 years of age when he committed these offences.

AB was 28 years of age.

8. AM’s appeal to this Court relates to the sentence which the learned sentencing judge imposed on count 1. He submits that this sentence was excessive. His main argument is that the injuries which he inflicted on AB did not merit a headline sentence of 15 and a half years’ imprisonment. The main issue is therefore whether his offending came within the 15 years-plus headline range referred to in guidance by this Court in People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Sullivan [2019] IECA 250.

9. This appeal is being dismissed. AM has not demonstrated that the learned sentencing judge committed any error in principle in determining this sentence.

10. The headline sentence which a sentencing court should fix for any offence is a synthesis of harm caused by that offending and culpability of the offender. While AM’s assault on AB, as luck would have it, did not result in her sustaining more serious physical and mental injuries, his level of culpability was very high. His offending had numerous aggravating features, including statutory aggravating features. This offending merited a very stiff deterrent headline sentence and he had very little to offer in mitigation.

11. The Oireachtas has recently enacted changes which recognise that offending involving serious domestic violence is a serious problem in Irish society and that domestic violence offences merit heavier and more severe punishment.

12. Relevant statutory provisions required the learned sentencing judge pass heavier sentences on AM than she would otherwise have imposed.

13. Section 23 of the 2023 Act recast the offence of harassment, contrary to s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 and increased the maximum sentence on conviction on indictment from 7 to 10 years. This section now also provides that where a person who has been convicted of harassment of another person has been convicted of a previous offence against that person, this must be treated as an aggravating factor and the sentencing court must impose a higher sentence than would otherwise been imposed.

14. Section 40 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 (the 2018 Act) provides that serious assault and harassment offences committed by offenders against current and former domestic partners are statutory aggravating factors which require a greater sentence than that which would otherwise be imposed.

15. Where the Oireachtas makes changes to laws governing sentencing, whether by increasing maximum sentences or by providing for mandatory increases to sentences which would otherwise be imposed, sentencing courts are obliged to take notice. They must treat relevant offending as a more serious category and impose heavier sentences. The new policy must be reflected both in headline sentences for this type of offending and in sentences ultimately imposed on offenders who have committed those offences.

16. This means that offenders who seriously assault or harass their spouses or partners must expect to receive deterrent sentences which are significantly higher than those which have been imposed heretofore.

17. Evidence at the sentencing hearing on 26 April 2024 establishes that AM and AB had been in a relationship and had a child together. This was an intimate relationship and it follows that AB was a “relevant person” for the purposes of s.40(1), (2) and (6) of the 2018 Act. AM’s offences of assault of AB causing serious harm, falsely imprisoning her and threatening to kill her are “relevant offences” for the purposes of those provisions.

18. The learned sentencing judge was obliged by s.40(1) of the 2018 Act to treat the fact that AM committed those offences against his former partner as an aggravating factor.

19. In addition, s.40(2) of the 2018 Act requires sentencing judge to “impose a sentence which is greater than that which would have been imposed if the person against whom the offence was committed was not a relevant person.”

20. One part of the rationale of these provisions is the need to deter those who have committed or may be of a mind to commit assaults causing harm, false imprisonment, threats to kill and other offences of violence against their current or former domestic partners. Another part of that rationale is that the law expressly recognises that these aggravating features increase the seriousness of these offences and requires that courts recognise this by imposing heavier sentences.

21. The learned sentencing judge was obliged to increase the sentence which she would otherwise have imposed on AM for the offence of assault causing serious harm to AB because she was his former partner when he committed this offence.

22. As AM committed this offence while on bail, the learned sentencing judge was also obliged by s.11(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 to treat that fact as an aggravating factor and to impose on him a sentence which was greater than that which she would have imposed in the absence of that factor. The evidence is that he committed the offences on 5 November 2023 while he was on bail. The terms of this bail included conditions that he keep the peace and that he stays away from AB.

23. The learned sentencing judge could only disregard these sentencing obligations if identifiable exceptional circumstances justified departure from this course. No such circumstances existed in this case.

24. Judicial experience is that many of domestic violence offenders persistently ignore protection orders and commit repeated offences while on bail on charges that they have broken these orders. AM’s history of offending by harassing AB in breach of judicial prohibitions while on bail is an example of this conduct.

25. AM was on probation supervision in relation to a conviction for an offence which he had committed on AB. This offence was a threat to kill her which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of two months. He had tried to break into her home and made threats to kill or cause serious harm to her on that occasion.

26. AB spent the evening of the assault socialising with her friend YZ. She intended to go home to her parents afterwards. She got a phone call from AB and refused to go home with him. He was drunk and angry. Telephone messages sent by AM to AB during that night showed that he became obsessed with where she was and decided to track her down.

27. He got a taxi to the location of the assault, jumped out of it, and tried to grab AB. YZ pulled her away and they headed down the street. He followed them in the taxi, jumped out, grabbed AB by the arms and hair and forced her into the taxi. He hit YZ on the head when she tried to intervene. He pushed her back and locked the doors of this car.

28. AM then began punching AB and banging her head against the footwell of the car. At that stage, the taxi-man was locked out of his car and a Garda arrived at the scene.

They tried to get into the car while he kept banging her head, punching her face and screaming at her that she was a whore, a bitch, and a tramp and that she was going to die: “Tonight is the night you die.” “This is for being with other men.” AM continued to punch AB until the Gardaí got her out of the car. He ignored instructions to stop. This assault continued for 10 minutes.

29. AM’s phone was seized and subsequently examined by Gardaí. It contained a number of messages accusing AB, as counsel put it, “of illicit relations with other persons.” These showed that he was very jealous of her and regarded her as his.

30. AB was taken to hospital initially and ended up being treated by a plastic surgeon in a different hospital on the day after the assault. She underwent surgery that day.

She had a large laceration on her face which was through and through at the lip.

This laceration ran from the lip in a round course to the cheek and then almost to the line of the mandible. Repair of this laceration required an operation under local anaesthetic. This involved many stitches. She has been marked forever by this scar and there was a possibility of interference with mouth function as a result of nerve damage. There is no evidence that her injury did cause loss of mouth function.

31. The learned sentencing judge was provided with photographs of the injuries sustained by AB and YZ. Gardaí took photographs of AB a few hours after the assault and a few days later.

32. This Court has been supplied with these photographs. They show AB was badly battered around the face and left with extensive bruising and two swollen black eyes. The through-and-through cut into her mouth running from the side of her lip was a deep gash which resulted in extensive bleeding. She has been left with a permanent disfiguring facial scar.

33. The photographs of YZ show bruising on her face, a black eye and bruising on her neck. They also show heavy bruising in the area of one of her elbows and bruising on one of her legs above the knee.

34. At the sentencing hearing on 26 April 2024 both AB and YZ read out victim impact statements. AB recounted a history of earlier threats to kill and that the domestic violence orders enjoining him from this type of activity were ignored by him. She recounted the assault by AM on her. He used vicious language and threatened to kill her. She thought she was going to die. He had previously threatened to kill her and ruin her life so that nobody would want her. She recounted how she was still very anxious as a result of this assault and that when on nights out she has complete meltdowns and panic attacks. She had not been able to return to work and walking near the scene of the attack left her panicked and stressed. She only feels safe out with YZ. She recounted how he had threatened to kill her or ruin her looks and that she is now scarred for life.

35. YZ recounted injuries which included bruising to arms, legs and temple, scratches to her face, hair being pulled from the top of her head and a fingernail partially ripped from the nail-bed. She has daily flashbacks of the events of that night and suffers constant anxiety. This makes it difficult for her to work in her job as a hairdresser.

Seeing AB being attacked by AM that night was very traumatising for her.

36. AM was arrested and questioned. He tried to maintain that AB called him to pick her up on the night of the assault.

37. AM received an unfavourable probation report. The learned sentencing judge stated that it was difficult to assess the genuineness of his remorse. He offered an apology by counsel at the sentencing hearing. It is clear that he has severe personality issues which he is not addressing. He has engaged in obsessive and controlling behaviour and has subjected his former domestic partner to a campaign of intimidation and violence.

38. These assaults by AM on AB and YZ were totally unprovoked. They were the culmination of his campaign of harassment and threats to kill AB which had been going on since 2021. He was not in the least dissuaded by his previous interactions with the criminal law and court orders enjoining him from making contact with her.

39. The learned sentencing judge, having recounted this evidence, decided that the assault by AM on AB causing serious harm merited a headline sentence in the higher range of sentences referred to by this Court in sentencing guidance provided in O’Sullivan. She took into account numerous aggravating features. These were repeated threats by AM to kill AB; his complete indifference to court protection orders preventing him from contacting AB; commission of these offences while on bail on charges of breaching those orders; his breach of probation conditions arising from previous offending relating to AB; the fact that AB was formerly his domestic partner; and the fact that he trapped and imprisoned her in a car for 10 minutes and threatened to kill her while assaulting her.

40. The learned sentencing judge had regard to the duration and severity of AM’s assault on AB and the serious injury which he inflicted on her. The learned sentencing judge also took into account the very significant psychological impact of this assault on AB as set out in her victim impact statement.

41. AB was very lucky that AM’s assault on her did not result in further serious facial injuries, an acquired brain injury or even death. The evidence of what happened during this prolonged assault shows that absence of more serious injury to AB was a matter of luck and not the result of any want of effort by AM to inflict serious injury on her.

42. This Court agrees with the assessment of the learned sentencing judge that the appropriate headline sentence for this offence was 15 and a half years’ imprisonment. No error in principle has been identified which would make that assessment of the headline sentence inappropriate. While it is the case that AB did not suffer physical injuries which were devastating in the sense of permanently disabling, they were still very serious and have significant long term physical and psychological effects on her. AM’s culpability was of a very high order and the aggravating features associated with his offending were very significant. He was completely undeterred by AB’s pleas for mercy and Gardaí efforts to persuade him to stop.

43. AM had very little to offer in mitigation or in relation to his personal circumstances which would justify any significant reduction of this sentence. He offered an early plea, but this was in circumstances where he was observed by the Gardaí who were trying to rescue AB while he was assaulting her. While he offered an apology through his counsel during the sentencing hearing, this was devoid of meaning in view of his lack of insight into his offending and his claims that he was in fact the victim.

44. The probation report shows a high risk that AM will repeat this type of offending when he is released. He will still be a young man when he is released. It follows that any sentence he receives for the index offences must, within the limits of what is proportionately permissible, be calibrated to punish him severely for his offending conduct, and serve as a deterrent to him, and others, from engaging in such conduct in the future.

45. AM is old enough at this stage in his life to be fully responsible for his actions. His history of offending and lack of insight means that he is at high risk of reoffending on release from imprisonment and must be supervised. During his previous period of probation supervision he failed to address his controlling behaviour and did not acknowledge that he required intervention to address this problem. His alcohol and substance abuse offers little or no mitigation. As the probation report points out, his misuse of alcohol and drugs is likely to increase his propensity to domestic abuse.

46. The learned sentencing judge took such limited material as was available in relation to AM’s personal circumstances and mitigation in reducing the headline sentence to

13 years. Given the lack of material available to her which might justify any significant deduction from the headline sentence, this Court cannot see that she made any error in principle in arriving at this conclusion.

47. Finally, the learned sentencing judge suspended the final 2 years of the sentence of

13 years’ imprisonment for a period of 3 years from date of release, on condition that AM remain under probation supervision during that period and engage in offence focussed discussions and risk management strategies and engages in an assessment for a domestic violence treatment programme and complete any recommended programme.

48. This Court cannot detect any error of principle in this part of the sentence. The learned sentencing judge had regard to his probation report in imposing these conditions. It was appropriate that the learned sentencing judge suspend the final two years of this sentence. It would not have been appropriate for her to suspend any longer period of this sentence in view of the fact that AM had not showed any willingness to engage seriously with rehabilitation.