Director of Public Prosecutions v Curtis [2019] IECA 259 (11 October 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Judgment of the Court ex tempore delivered on the 11th day of October 2019 by Mr.

1. This is an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s.2 of the

Criminal Justice Act, 1993 seeking a review of sentence on the grounds of undue leniency.

The sentence sought to be reviewed is one of four years’ imprisonment, the final two

years of which were suspended on terms imposed. The offence is one contrary to s.4 of

the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, and the sentence was imposed on

2. The trial related to events that had occurred on the 28th March, 2014 at Cashel Road,

Crumlin in Dublin, and the jury concluded that the respondent had assaulted the injured

party, a sixteen-year-old youth. What occurred on the date in question was the subject

of controversy at the trial. It is clear that the injured party was one of a group of young

people, perhaps as many as twenty in number, who were playing music and talking loudly

in the vicinity of the home of Mr Curtis’ mother. It is clear that Mr Curtis emerged from

the house, that he was carrying a hurley, that he struck the injured party, Mr McClelland,

and that Mr McClelland sustained a depressed fracture of the skull requiring emergency

3. In the course of the trial the defence was essentially one of self-defence. Mr Curtis

claimed that Mr McClelland was witnessed by him damaging his car with a plank. He said

that he feared for his safety and that of his mother and sister who resided in the house.

He accepted that he had followed Mr McClelland for some distance: The Court was told at

the appeal hearing it was about seventy-five yards from the area outside the house, but

the appellant says that whilst he had sought to strike Mr McClelland on his body in self-

4. In terms of his background and circumstances, the appellant was thirty-four years of age

at the time of the offence, the father of four children, one of whom experiences medical

difficulties, and it appears that he is a good family man. He was out of work at the time

of the offence, but had a work history that involved marble cutting and working in

5. He has seventeen previous convictions, fifteen of which were for road traffic matters.

There is however, a conviction for an offence under s.3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against

the Person Act, 1997 and also a conviction for an offence contrary to s.4 of the same Act.

They arose apparently out of the same incident and a term of imprisonment of six years

was imposed in respect of the offence contrary to s.4, two of which had been suspended,

and in May 2004 the incident involved a stabbing and was described by counsel as being

a “domestic situation”. The injured parties were a former partner and the former

6. In terms of the impact on the victim, the injury has involved significant permanent effects

due to injury to the brain in his speech and personality have been adversely affected, as

was his capacity for concentration. He is left with, amongst other things, hesitancy of

speech and difficulty in finding appropriate forms of words. We do not have an up to date

7. It is contended that a clear basis for the verdict did not exist and that there were two or

more potential bases for it. On the facts it is further submitted that the version

reasonably open on the evidence most favourable to the accused is the one upon which a

court must proceed to sentence. We cannot see how this can be so. The jury could only

have been satisfied of the guilt of the accused having regard to the defence on which it

had been advanced. If they had not only rejected the proposition that the force used by

the appellant was objectively justified, but also that there was no reasonable doubt as to

whether or not in his own mind subjectively speaking, he thought that he was entitled to

act as he did. The jury must accordingly have rejected any question of the reality of any

8. The jury may or may not have taken the view that the mirror of the appellant’s car was

damaged by Mr McClelland or by persons’ unknown. It need hardly be said that the

proper approach was at most to approach the individuals in question in a peaceable

manner and if that approach failed in terms of bringing the incident to an end to call the

Gardaí one cannot obviously take the law into one’s own hands.

9. The judge summarised his understanding of events as follows: -

“This was a situation in which the accused was essentially minding his own

business, he was in his mother’s house and he was while not asleep he was

preparing to sleep when an anti-social incident occurred outside his mother’s

house. He saw his car being damaged deliberately by somebody, he identified Mr.

McClelland as the person who did that, I don’t have to decide that. He was

involved in damaging his car deliberately and there was noise, loud music and a

general congregation of certainly nearly twenty or thereabouts young men outside

his mother’s house. It was undoubtedly a frightening occasion for him and the

accused responded to it, particularly when he saw his car being damaged by

grabbing a hurley stick and exiting the premises to drive away the boys. These

young men around fifteen to sixteen years of age, I heard some of them in the

course of the trial, scattered but Mr. McClelland attempted to strike the accused

with a plank. He failed to do so, letting go of the plank, and at that stage the

10. Having regard to the verdict, we cannot see, how even if that occurred it could be of any

relevance. There may have been an element of provocation, albeit not one which gave

rise to a lawful justification for what happened. Further, it does not impinge, if it arose,

on the jury’s verdict. We proceed to sentence on the basis that such provocation is a

minor mitigating factor on sentence. We accordingly set aside the verdict and we now

proceed to sentence. This is because we think there was an error in principle in failing to

have due regard to the gravity of the offence, and we must make a valued judgment as

to where on the scale of seriousness this case, objectively speaking, lies for the purpose

of fixing a headline sentence. We think it falls in the middle range of being approximately

being five to six years, the middle of the middle range. Whilst we do have regard to the

Director of Public Prosecutions in DPP v O’Sullivan (Unreported, Court of Appeal, October

11th 2019) in which judgment was given today, we apply the guidelines and have regard

to the earlier case of DPP v. Fitzgibbon [2014] IECCA 12, since that was the law

11. We have regard to the fact that we are now imposing a more lengthy sentence than that

which was imposed in the trial court. There were a number of mitigating factors present,

which have been identified. Accordingly, even though a higher sentence might have been

imposed at first instance, we limit our intervention to imposing a sentence of five years’

imprisonment, with the last twelve months suspended in order to incentivise the appellant

in rehabilitating himself and for the purpose of re-introducing the appellant into society.

12. We are therefore quashing the sentence in the court below, substituting a sentence of five

years’ imprisonment with the final twelve months suspended and the respondent will have

to enter into a bond to avail of the twelve months’ suspension. The terms will involve him

being subject to the probation service and complying with their directions during a period

of one-year post-release from custody.

Result: Allow and Vary

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v Curtis [2019] IECA 259 (11 October 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019_IECA_259.html Cite as: [2019] IECA 259

Irish Court of Appeal