Man who carried out ‘brutal’ attack on neighbour fails to overturn conviction
A man described as a “pillar” of his community who committed a “brutal” assault on his musician neighbour, during which the victim had his arm stamped on, will remain behind bars after failing in a bid to overturn his conviction or have his sentence reduced.
41 letters of recommendation were handed into the sentencing court on behalf of Eugene Hanratty Snr, who left his victim with multiple broken bones in his face and the permanent loss of peripheral vision in one eye.
The Court of Appeal also said on Thursday it would take the opportunity to deprecate the “developing practice” whereby defence applications to withdraw cases from a jury at trial are “now being made as a matter of course”.
Hanratty Snr (65), of Castleblayney Road, Crossmaglen, Co Armagh, was convicted by a jury following a trial in October 2022 and was jailed for three years. He had pleaded not guilty to assault causing harm at Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, on November 24, 2012.
The trial heard that complainant Martin McAllister and his wife were driving on a Saturday afternoon near Castleblayney on their way to Crossmaglen when a vehicle approached with its headlights on full.
Mr McAllister told the trial that he felt his path was blocked by the other vehicle and recognised the occupants of the car as being father and son, Eugene Hanratty Snr and Eugene Jnr.
The trial heard that Hanratty Snr got out of his car and began an assault on Mr McAllister initially inside the injured party’s vehicle. The victim said that Hanratty Snr punched him a number of times in the head, pulled him down by the hair and kicked him before dragging him out of the vehicle.
Mr McAllister told the trial that the assault continued outside the car, with Hanratty Snr continually kicking him while he was on the ground. His right arm was stamped on and he went in and out of consciousness.
The victim gave evidence that Hanratty Snr was aware he was a musician and felt that the stamping on his arm was “significant”.
The victim suffered multiple broken bones in his face, both his eye sockets were broken and he has been left with a permanent loss of his peripheral vision.
Hanratty Sr’s lawyers appealed the conviction, submitting that the matter should have been removed from the jury’s consideration due to “numerous” failings in the prosecution’s case.
At the Court of Appeal hearing, Sean Guerin SC, for Hanratty Snr, submitted that gardaí failed to conduct a proper forensic examination of the scene of the attack in that materials gathered - blood swabs and a cigarette – were lost.
Counsel said the scene could also have been “misidentified” in terms of the location referred to in maps and photographs used in the trial.
Mr Guerin said that these failings “significantly hampered” the defendant when a “significant passage of time” had occurred between the 2012 incident and his October 2022 trial.
It was also submitted by Mr Guerin that gardaí failed “without reasonable explanation” to seek an account from Mr Hanratty Snr on his version of events and that gardaí proceeded to investigate the matter from background received solely from Mr McAllister without ever interviewing his client.
At the Court of Appeal on Thursday, president of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice George Birmingham said the trial judge was correct in refusing an application by the defence to withdraw the case from the jury.
Mr Justice Birmingham said “these types of applications are now being made with greater regularity; indeed it can be said that they are now being made as a matter of course”.
“We take this opportunity to deprecate such a developing practice. The trial judge will stop the trial only if satisfied that there is a real risk of an unfair trial,” said Mr Justice Birmingham.
In dismissing the conviction appeal, Mr Justice Birmingham said that upon reading the original trial transcripts, the Court of Appeal was “struck by the extent to which the defence at trial focused on the quality of the Garda investigation and suggested deficiencies therein”.
“This, rather than the question of whether there was proof or guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or whether there was an absence thereof, was the focus of the attention,” said the judge.
Mr Justice Birmingham said: “We are bound to say that many of the arguments advanced lacked reality.”
Mr Justice Birmingham said the three-judge court had “no doubt” the trial judge was correct to refuse the application to stop the trial and that none of the arguments advanced “caused us to doubt the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict”.
In dismissing the sentence appeal, Mr Justice Birmingham said Hanratty Snr’s lawyers had submitted that the three-year sentence had been “excessive in all circumstances” and failed to adequately regard mitigating factors of the appellant’s age, previous good character, that he was active in the community, a successful businessman and that there had been 41 letters of recommendation handed into the court.
“It is said [by the appellant] that the trial judge initially erred by setting a headline sentence at five years and that there was a specific error in treating the appellant’s lack of a guilty plea as an aggravating factor,” said Mr Justice Birmingham.
Mr Justice Birmingham said that the contention of a prolonged prosecution and a lack of a plea of guilty as aggravating factors was based on an “interpretation” by the appellant of “observations” made by the trial judge.
“That the decision of an accused person to exercise his constitutional right to go to trial cannot be regarded as aggravating is so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence that it is inconceivable that a judge as experienced as the sentencing judge would be unaware of this,” said Mr Justice Birmingham.
“We are convinced there is no substance to the suggestion,” said the judge.
Mr Justice Birmingham said that an incident “three or four weeks” earlier over duck shooting could not be considered “by any stretch of the imagination” as provocation of Hanratty Snr by Mr McAllister. Mr Justice Birmingham also noted that the jury accepted the account of events given by the McAllisters at the trial.
The judge said Mr McAllister suffered multiple broken bones in his face, to both eye sockets, the permanent loss of peripheral vision in one eye, “which impinges on his everyday life, reading texts, but in particular, music notation - a matter of particular seriousness for a musician”.
Mr Justice Birmingham said the headline sentence of five years was “entirely understandable”, adding that there had been a reduction of one year in mitigation and a further year suspended, which he described as “generous”.
“We see no basis for coming to a conclusion that the sentence was unduly severe,” said Mr Justice Birmingham, who then dismissed both appeals.