The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has reserved judgment on an appeal against an eight-and-a-half-year sentence for recklessly causing serious harm to an Italian student in Dublin, in 1999.
The student, Mr Guido Nasi, was left paralysed from the neck down.
James Osbourne (32) was sentenced in November 2001 after pleading guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to recklessly causing serious harm to Mr Nasi, then age 17, at Annesley Bridge Road, Fairview, on July 29th, 1999.
Osbourne's appeal against the severity of sentence was heard today by the three-judge CCA. Mr Justice Geoghegan, sitting with Mr Justice O Caoimh and Mr Justice de Valera, said the court would reserve its judgment and give it soon after April 28th.
The CCA heard Mr Nasi was struck on the head with a half-full bottle of lager, causing near-fatal and permanent injuries, after he confronted a young boy over the disappearance of his wallet.
A garda sergeant told the trial court Mr Nasi was playing with friends in the park and was attacked by Osbourne who saw him wrestling with a young boy whom Mr Nasi believed to have stolen his wallet. Mr Nasi was taken to hospital a little dazed but well enough to walk. However, his condition deteriorated later.
Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Osbourne, of Forth Road, East Wall, Dublin, told the Circuit Court his client deeply regretted "the terrible, catastrophic injuries inflicted to Mr Nasi". If Osbourne could trade places, he would, counsel said. His client was an alcoholic who had been drinking for most of the day. The incident was fuelled by drink and rage.
Mr O'Higgins argued there were a number of errors in principle in the sentence imposed which, he contended, was excessive in all the circumstances. While the injuries sustained by Mr Nasi were catastrophic, they were inflicted as a result of a single blow to the head. It was accepted that the injury was as serious as could be inflicted but it was less than death, counsel added.
A person who inflicted a serious injury on another should not in principle face a higher penalty if the injured person had died, he argued. The case being made was that the penalty imposed was higher that one would have anticipated in circumstances as if there had been manslaughter.
If the case had gone to trial and a conviction had ensued, the sort of sentence which could have been expected was 10 - 12 years. From that, the trial judge had worked back as to what the appropriate sentence would be on a plea of guilty, Mr O'Higgins said.
Mr Dominic McGinn, for the DPP, said the evidence before the Circuit Court had been very fairly presented. This was not a brawl in which a number of parties were drunk but was an unprovoked attack on somebody who was unarmed. The case, if it had resulted in death, would attract a higher sentence. It was hard to think of a more serious offence in its consequences, he said.