Increased sentence for 'alarming and shocking' assault in Cork

The 23-year-old student had delivered 250 blows as he subjected a man to an 'alarming and shocking' 20-minute assault 

During the attack on Paul St in Cork, the assailant used the victim’s own phone to record a 77-second section of the assault. 

A 23-year-old student who subjected a man to an “alarming and shocking” 20-minute assault in which he delivered 250 blows will now serve a further two years in prison after the State objected to the undue leniency of his original four-year sentence.

Mr Justice Michael McGrath said that Darragh McLoughlin, aged 23, had shown “no mercy” to the victim and his culpability was “extremely high”, as the Court of Appeal increased the sentence to eight years and two months in prison, with the final two years and two months suspended.

McLoughlin, of Richmond Hill, Cork, was sentenced last May by Judge Johnathan Dunphy at Anglesea St Courthouse having pleaded guilty to assault causing serious harm at Paul St, Cork, on October 18, 2022.

CCTV video of assault 

At the sentencing hearing, the court was shown a CCTV recording of the assault in which McLoughlin confronted the injured party on Paul St in Cork.

He wrestled him to the ground before beginning a sustained assault on him. The court heard there had been some bad blood between the men.

Detective Garda Joe Crowley said gardaí had counted 250 separate blows — either punches, kicks or stamps — by McLoughlin on the injured party. McLoughlin had used the victim’s own phone to record a 77-second section of the assault. 

The phone also had audio on the attack in which he could be heard ordering the injured party to stop protecting himself. Judge Dunphy said: 

He instructs him to put his hands down so he can kick him in the skull unprotected. I counted 14 kicks to the head in that.

The judge added that the victim had sustained 50 kicks to the face.

Judge Dunphy said it was nothing short of miraculous the victim had not suffered life-threatening injuries, as he sentenced McLoughlin to six and a half years with the final two and a half years suspended. The Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently appealed this sentence as being unduly lenient.

At the Court of Appeal on Monday, Mr Justice McGrath noted the DPP's argument that the headline sentence of 10 years was too low and should have been set at 15 years. The DPP also argued that undue weight had been placed on mitigating factors.

Very high culpability

Mr Justice McGrath said that the respondent’s culpability was very high, as video footage of the assault was “alarming and shocking”.

He said that no mercy was shown by the respondent, adding that the fact that McLoughlin recorded the assault on the victim’s phone was an aggravating factor.

He noted that no weapons were introduced during the assault, while the sentencing judge had also addressed the mental health difficulties of the respondent.

While acknowledging that there had been an “element of provocation” suggested in the case, Mr Justice McGrath said that McLoughlin had numerous opportunities to deescalate the situation but instead pursued the victim through the city. 

Mr Justice McGrath said that what the court needed to decide was whether the sentence imposed deviated from the norm.

“We cannot accept that this offending falls into the exceptional category,” said Mr Justice McGrath, adding that, while the respondent’s culpability was extremely high, the injuries inflicted were not life-threatening or catastrophic, so the court was therefore satisfied that the headline sentence should not be in the exceptional category of 15 years.

However, he went on to say that the court was satisfied that taking into consideration the high level of culpability, the headline sentence of 10 years was too low, which had a knock-on effect on the sentence imposed.

Saying that this was an error in principle, Mr Justice McGrath said the headline sentence should be 12-and-a-half years, so the original sentence was unduly lenient. 

He ruled the court would quash the original sentence and resentence the respondent.

After considering mitigation, including the signed plea of guilt and the respondent’s mental health struggles, the judge reduced the headline sentence to eight years and two months in prison, with the final two years and two months suspended.