Court of Appeal dismisses appeal where 20% guilty plea discount was deemed proportionate for serious assault.

APPROVED

NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Record Number: 0301/2024 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] IECA 47

Kennedy J. Butler J. Burns J.

BETWEEN/

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT/

- AND -

BRIAN WARD APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered (ex tempore) on the 9th day of March 2026 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

1. This is an appeal against sentence imposed on the 1st of November 2024 for an offence contrary to s.3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. A headline sentence of 5 years was nominated by the sentencing judge, which was discounted by 20% for mitigation, resulting in a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

Factual Background

2. On the 9th of December 2021, the appellant, his brother Cathal Ward (the injured party), and Kirsty Glover were socialising in Ms. Glover’s apartment. Sometime that evening, the injured party went into a bedroom and was followed by the appellant. The injured party then shouted for an ambulance. Ms. Glover entered the bedroom and saw the injured party bleeding from his upper thoracic area. The appellant returned to the kitchen following this, took cans of beer, and left the apartment. The injured party collapsed at the bottom of the stairs at the entrance of Ms. Glover’s apartment.

3. Members of the Gardaí observed the injured party slumped in the doorway to the apartment. Ms. Glover was administering first aid. A Garda provided first aid until paramedics arrived and conveyed the injured party to Mayo University Hospital. He was critically injured and rendered unconscious and was hospitalised for approximately 7 days.

Medical reports indicated that had he not reached the Emergency Department in time, he potentially could have died due to excess blood loss.

4. A search of the scene was carried out, but Gardaí were unable to locate the weapon used.

The appellant was arrested, but could not be questioned for 6 hours due to intoxication.

His clothing was covered in blood, which transpired to be that of the injured party.

Personal Circumstances of the Appellant

5. The appellant was 28 years of age at the time of sentence. He was the primary carer for his 5 young children, three of whom have specific needs. He has the support of his family, and had apologised to the injured party and expressed his remorse. Whilst he has previous convictions, they are not for violent offending. He pleaded guilty to the offence, and the net argument advanced is that the judge should have discounted the headline sentence by 25% to take account of all mitigating factors, the most significant being the plea. Sentencing Remarks

6. The judge took into consideration the value of the appellant’s guilty plea, the absence of previous violent convictions, as well as his obligations to his partner and 5 children. The judge referred to the appellant’s history of alcohol consumption and determined not to suspend any portion of the 4 year sentence due to the appellant’s previous lack of cooperation and engagement with the Probation Service.

Grounds of Appeal

“4. The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge failed to take into account the personal circumstances of the accused.

5. The learned Trial Judge failed to give due and just credit for the plea of guilty and the Appellant’s genuine remorse.”

Submissions of the Appellant

7. The appellant submits that his personal circumstances in conjunction with his plea of guilty should have led to a greater discount than 20 percent, and that it ought, in fact, to be no less than 25 percent. The appellant contends that the failure of the sentencing judge to combine these two aspects together and give the appropriate discount amounts to an error of principle.

8. It is submitted that while the sentencing judge acknowledged the value of the guilty plea in setting out his sentence, the actual reduction afforded for the guilty plea did not reflect that acknowledgement.

Submissions of the Respondent

9. The respondent argues that there was strong evidence against the appellant; he was caught ‘red handed’; Ms. Glover witnessed both parties go into the room and saw the injured party exit injured; and the injured party’s blood was found on the appellant’s clothing, thus reducing the discount for the guilty plea. The sentence it is said, was therefore proportionate.

Discussion and Conclusion

10. There is no doubt that this was serious offending, at the very highest level, for assault causing harm. The argument advanced here is a net one, that is that the judge ought to have afforded a greater discount for mitigation, in particular the plea of guilty, specifically that the judge ought to have reduced the headline sentence by 25%.

11. There is no hard and fast rule that a headline sentence should be discounted by 25%. A judge must take account of the particular circumstances in any given case and impose a proportionate sentence. It is readily apparent that the judge took account of all the mitigating factors present, the most significant being that of the plea of guilty, but was of the opinion that the offending was of such a character that it merited the nomination of the maximum headline sentence and a reduction of 20% for mitigation. It is the position that the evidence against the appellant was strong, and while a plea of guilty ordinarily merits some reduction in sentence, the level of discount is not set in stone. This was serious offending and the fact that the appellant was caught ‘red handed’ was a relevant factor to be considered in terms of the reduction for mitigation. He was given credit for mitigation, and in our view the reduction of 20% does not amount to an error in principle.

A proportionate sentence must be imposed, and we are entirely satisfied that the judge did not err in reducing the headline sentence as he did, or in imposing a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.