[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Criminal Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> Mooney, D.P.P. (People) v. [2008] IECCA 122 (20 October 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_122.html Cite as: [2008] IECCA 122

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Kearns J.

Budd J.

Clark J.

[119 CJA/08]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1993

BETWEEN

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

AND MICHAEL MOONEY

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered the 20th day of October, 2008 by Kearns J.

On 13th March, 2008 the respondent received a four year prison sentence of which two years were suspended following the entry of a plea of guilty to having struck a Mr. Eoin O Callanain in the face with a glass

-2-


 


in premises known as Club 21 in D'Olier Street. The offence occurred on the 23^rd April, 2006. That bald recital in no way adequately conveys the horror of the particular incident.

Mr. O Callanain on the day in question had been in Athlone playing a rugby match. When he came back to Dublin, he went with some friends for a few drinks in these particular premises. The respondent and another associate were present on the premises, obviously in a highly excited condition, be it due to drugs or drink, with their shirts off. Following a completely innocuous bumping into each other between Mr. O Callanain and Mr. Mooney, Mr. Mooney struck Mr. O Callanain in the face, in the upper head area to the front of the head, with a glass.

Mr. O Callanain realised he had suffered an extremely serious injury. He spent three weeks in hospital and the early days were absolutely terrifying for him because it wasn't clear whether his left eye could be saved such was the severity of the laceration caused by the glass. He was told there was a chance he could lose vision in both his eyes due to what is called sympathetic blindness. He had what he described as agonising treatments on a near hourly basis in hospital and had to attend as an out-patient in the hospital for nearly a year afterwards. He had dreadful nightmares about what had happened to him. Obviously he lost his sporting career, he found that his mood was very badly affected and his parents and family would suffer the brunt of outbursts of anger that he

-3-


 


felt over what had happened to him. These feelings included the sense he had of having his whole sporting career snatched from him forever. He lost out on his year's study in Trinity College and had to repeat the year in question. He has been left with a very significant disability in his left eye and a very uncertain medical future for that eye. He has lost the lens of the eye and has a significant risk of retinal detachment in that eye.

The Court has read carefully the medical report prepared by Consultant Ophthalmologist, Dr. Denise McAuliffe Curtin, and notes her view that this has been an extremely serious injury and there are risks of other problems down the line, such as infection, haemorrhage or retinal detachment.

That is the way this particular night ended up for this young man who was going about his business and enjoying himself, as he was perfectly entitled to do.

In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Director is entitled to have the sentence reviewed in this case. It has taken into account the additional material tendered by Miss Kennedy this morning in arriving at a conclusion as to what course it should adopt.

The Court is satisfied there was a substantial departure from what was the appropriate sentence having regard to the savagery of this assault, both because of the gravity of the assault, the gravity of the injury and the particular fact that in this case the respondent had twenty-five previous

-4-


 


convictions, many of which were alcohol related. A sum of money has been paid by way of compensation. In fairness to Mr. Mooney I don't think it has ever been suggested by him or by anybody on his behalf that that would, as it were, buy his way out of the dreadful situation in which he now finds himself.

All of these cases are very difficult. It is very difficult for the Court to take account of the fact that Mr. Mooney himself was only twenty-four years of age at the time and now is still short of his twenty-seventh birthday. He has a partner and child and he was a person who had good employment working with an electrical company. He has made good progress since he signed into Coolmine for rehabilitation in July of 2006.

This is yet another instance where the lethal combination of cocaine and alcohol provoked and led to this completely disproportionate explosion of anger and aggression on a completely blameless person and the Court is therefore satisfied that this is a case which warrants a review and the Court will in all the circumstances increase the sentence in this case to a term of eight years, but will suspend the last four years of that sentence, so effectively the custodial portion of the sentence will be increased from two years to four years.