[2026] IECA 101

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED THE COURT OF APPEAL Neutral Citation: [2026] IECA 101 Record Numbers: 102CJA/2025 Edwards J Kennedy J Burns J 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 GAVIN LAWLOR RESPONDENT JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 5th day of May, 2026 by Ms. Justice Tara Burns.

1. This is an application pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’) seeking a review of the sentences imposed on the respondent on grounds of undue leniency.
2. The respondent appeared before Wexford Circuit Court in respect of two bill numbers. On bill number 81/22, the respondent entered pleas of guilty, on a full facts basis, to five counts of assault causing harm contrary to s.3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’) and one count of coercive control contrary to s.39 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 (‘the 2018 Act’). On bill number 38/23, the respondent entered pleas of guilty to three counts of assault causing harm contrary to s.3 of the 1997 Act.
3. On 2 April 2025, sentence was pronounced in respect of both bill numbers. A headline sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment was identified in respect of each count on each bill number, which was reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment to reflect mitigatory factors. All sentences were to run concurrently. In order to incentivise rehabilitation, the final 12 months of the sentence was suspended for a period of 12 months on certain terms and conditions. A condition was also imposed that the respondent re-pay the victim a sum of €2,000, which represented the balance of funds transferred from the victim’s account to the respondent. Background
4. The victim and the respondent were involved in an intimate relationship. The victim had moved into the respondent’s house, where he lived with his family, some time prior to the offending commencing. She was 18 and he was
6. Bill number 81/22 related to 5 counts of s. 3 assault which were perpetrated against the victim between August and September 2021 and one count of coercive control.
7. Count 1 related to an incident which occurred on 26 August
8. The victim and respondent attended a birthday party for a cousin of the respondent. They were seated in a beer garden when the respondent 2 pushed the victim off a bench and onto the floor. The respondent then asked the victim to speak to him outside. During the course of the conversation the respondent became angry, called the victim names, grabbed her throat and slapped her into the face. He then took her phone. The victim ran away. However, the respondent followed her and brought her back to the venue. The victim had bruising to her neck as a result of this offending.
9. Count 2 related to an incident which occurred on 7 September
10. Whilst the victim and the respondent were waiting for a bus, an argument developed. The respondent pulled the victim onto a bench and made her sit beside him. When they got onto the bus, the respondent grabbed the victim by her throat and hit her twice on her leg and twice in the face. This caused the victim’s nose to bleed. The following day, the victim, while at the course she was attending, went to a shop with another student. On their way back, they came upon the respondent who questioned her as to what she was doing. The victim told the respondent that a supervisor had asked her to take the student to the shop, to which the respondent replied that he would ‘break her neck’ if the supervisor did not confirm what she had said.
11. Count 3 related to events on 22 September
12. The respondent punched the victim twice into the left side of her face, causing bruising to her face. The respondent told the victim that this was for kissing somebody else. The respondent’s family heard the altercation, and shouted at the respondent to stop. The respondent replied, “I’m not battering her, she deserves it”. The family members could not get into the room as the respondent had locked the door.
13. Count 4 related to an event on 23 September
14. The respondent grabbed the victim by the neck and told her that if she ever kissed anyone again, he would break her legs. 3
15. Count 5 related to events on 24 September
16. The victim mentioned the name of a man. In response, the respondent called her names and pushed the front wheel of a mountain bike into her left leg, hurting her. The respondent then slapped her in the face. The respondent told the victim that if she tried to leave, he would go after her and drag her back.
17. With respect to the coercive control offence, between March and September 2021, the respondent continually checked the victim’s phone; instructed her to block any male friends; forced her to choose between smoking cigarettes and vaping; took the SIM card from her phone to prevent her from contacting her parents; informed her that she was not allowed to go home; and monitored her movements. He also asked the victim to transfer a sum of €2,200 to his account to purchase a mobile home for both of them, which the victim did. Only €200 had been repaid to the victim.
18. The victim made a complaint to An Garda Síochána on 28 September 2021 in relation to these matters. When examined in hospital, bruising was noted on her lower back and left hip.
19. CCTV footage was located in respect of two of the incidents which depicted the victim being assaulted by the respondent.
20. The respondent was arrested and detained for questioning on the 29 September
21. He made some admissions to the offending when interviewed. He was charged with 2 offences of assault contrary to s. 2 of the 1997 Act and was released on bail. These charges were subsequently withdrawn, and he was instead charged with the s. 3 assaults, as outlined.
22. The victim recommenced a relationship with the respondent in December
23. 4
24. Bill number 38/23 relates to further assaults perpetrated on the victim by the respondent between December 2021 and March
26. Count 1 occurred three days after the victim moved back in with the respondent in December
27. The respondent hit the victim on the left upper arm with a closed fist causing bruising. The victim subsequently moved out of the respondent’s house.
28. Count 2 relates to an event which occurred in March
29. Whilst inspecting the victim’s phone, the respondent discovered a video on TikTok which the victim had “liked”. The respondent shouted at the victim and then hit her with a closed fist in her left eye. The victim curled up in a ball and covered her head with her hands to protect her face. The respondent continued to hit the victim with a closed fist on her back. The victim sustained a bruised left upper eyelid.
30. Count 3 relates to events on 6 March
31. The victim and respondent had attended a birthday party. An argument developed between them resulting in the victim going into the bathroom facilities with a friend. The respondent went into the facilities and attempted to pull the victim out, but the victim’s friend and a barman intervened, and the respondent was escorted from the premises. The victim and her friend were shown out the back of the bar and were accompanied to a friend’s house nearby. Some hours later, the respondent and his friend came to the house seeking to talk to the victim. The respondent dragged the victim out of the house by the hand and walked her back to their house. At their house, the respondent slapped the victim in the face. The victim attempted to hide in the bathroom, but the respondent blocked her from closing the door. The victim went to the bedroom to get her things at which point the respondent started hitting her on the left arm with both closed and open fists. The respondent then hit the victim on the side of her head, spat in her face, and pushed her on to the bed. The respondent attempted to rip her top off. The victim was 5 hysterical and scared in the course of this assault. She sustained bruising on her left arm and right eye.
32. On 5 June, the respondent was arrested and detained. He denied that he assaulted the victim.
33. Victim impact evidence was given on behalf of the victim at the sentencing hearing. Personal Circumstances of the Respondent
34. The respondent was between 19 and 20 years of age at the time of the offending in this matter. He had a difficult childhood and was expelled from school in third year. The respondent had a good work history. He has four previous convictions for road traffic offences. He attended some counselling sessions prior to the date of sentencing. The appellant was assessed as being of a high risk of re-offending. Grounds of Appeal
35. By notice of application dated 25 April 2025 the applicant has appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent on the following grounds:
36. “The Sentencing Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to place the offences at the appropriate point of the scale of severity, particularly the coercive control offence.
37. The Sentencing Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to place sufficient weight on the aggravating factors in both cases, particularly the fact of the parties having been in an intimate relationship in accordance with section 40 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 and the fact that the offences at Bill No. WXDP0038/2023 were committed while on bail for the offences at 6 WXDP0081/2022, as per the terms of Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as amended) (‘the 1984 Act’).
38. The Sentencing Judge erred in law, in fact and in principle, by failing to make the sentences for WXDP0038/2023 consecutive to the sentences for WXDP0081/2022, in light of the mandatory terms of Section 11 of the [1984 Act].
39. The Sentencing Judge erred in law and in fact by placing excessive weight on mitigating factors in the case, particularly the age of the accused and the desire to incentivise rehabilitation.
40. The Sentencing Judge erred in law and in fact by suspending the final twelve months of the sentence, in circumstances where a significant discount from the headline sentence had already been afforded in light of the mitigating factors in the case.” The Parties Submissions
41. The applicant submitted that the headline sentences identified by the sentencing judge failed to take into account the gravity of the overall offending, particularly having regard to the number of incidents over an extended period of time. In addition, it was submitted that the sentencing judge failed to place sufficient weight on the aggravating factors present in the case, in particular, that the offending took place in the context of an intimate relationship and that therefore, s. 40 of the 2018 Act applied, and that the offending reflected on bill number 38/23 was committed while the respondent was on bail in respect of bill number 81/
42. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that the sentencing judge erred by failing to make the sentence imposed on bill number 38/23 consecutive to the sentence imposed on bill number 81/22, as he was mandated to do pursuant to s. 11 of the 1984 Act when that offending was committed whilst on bail for the earlier offending. The applicant also submitted that an excessive discount was provided for mitigatory factors. 7
43. The respondent submitted that the sentencing judge placed the offences at the appropriate point on the scale of severity and that the headline sentence identified in respect of each offence did not amount to an error in principle. It was further submitted that the mandatory requirement pursuant to s. 11 of the 1984 Act to impose a consecutive sentence for an offence committed whilst on bail did not arise, as the charges in respect of which the respondent was on bail, were s. 2 assault charges, which were subsequently withdrawn. It was further submitted that the sentencing judge afforded appropriate weight to the mitigating factors present in the case, particularly having regard to the early pleas entered by the respondent, the efforts at rehabilitation taken by the respondent, his age, and the fact that he has not come to Gardaí’s attention since the offending. Discussion and Determination
44. The principles for determining undue leniency are well established and are set out in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Stronge [2011] IECCA 79 which this Court adopts. In essence, the applicant must prove that the sentence imposed constitutes a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence such that an error of principle is established, before this Court will intervene.
45. The repeat nature of the offending in this matter and the escalation in its seriousness, particularly in the context of an intimate relationship, makes this offending very serious (DPP v. Keogh [2024] IECA 132 and DPP v. Curtis [2024] IECA 101 refers). It is particularly concerning that having been the subject of a complaint to An Garda Síochána and having been charged with assaults, the respondent recommenced offending in a similar manner immediately upon resuming a relationship with the victim. The nature of offending reflected in the second bill number is of a more serious nature, particularly the last incident occurring. This offending is aggravated by the offending reflected in the earlier bill number and also by the fact that the respondent was on bail in respect of that offending. The 8 identification of a three year headline sentence in respect of the offending comprised on 38/23, which was aggravated by the fact that the respondent was on bail at the time of this offending, does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending.
46. Most particularly with respect to the applicant’s application, the sentencing judge clearly erred in imposing concurrent sentences with respect to both bill numbers. S. 11 of the 1984 Act provides:“11.—