This article is from page 8 of the 2011-12-06 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
TWO Clare men, who killed 26year-old school teacher Brian Casey after an unprovoked attack on St Stephen’s night two years, ago are facing further time in prison following a successful appeal by the State.
Harry Dinan (31), of Waterpark Heights, Ennis, and his nephew Kevin Dinan (24), of Clarehill, Clarecastle, were jailed for five and four years respectively having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Brian Casey on O’Connell Square, Ennis, on December 26, 2009.
Following an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday [Monday] determined that the sentences imposed by Judge Carroll Moran at Ennis Circuit Court 13 months ago were unduly lenient.
Presiding judge Mr Justice Liam McKechnie said that the appeal court wished to extend its deep sympathy to the family of Mr Casey, who was a “totally and utterly innocent” bystander attacked in a “cowardly and reprehensible” manner.
However, the three-judge court deferred imposing new sentences so as to allow each of the accused men time to collate evidence on their conduct in prison.
Ennis Circuit Court heard last year that Harry Dinan, who has 64 previous convictions, was on temporary release from prison at the time of the unlawful killing, while Kevin Dinan, who has 17 previous convictions, was on bail and awaiting sentence having pleaded guilty to a burglary charge.
Mr Casey was looking on at a scuffle with his hands in his pockets when he was caught off guard by a single severe “haymaker” punch inflicted by Harry Dinan at about midnight on St Stephen’s night on O’Connell Square.
The blow from Harry Dinan broke Mr Casey’s jaw in two places and the Lissycasey man hit the ground with the back of his head. He never regained consciousness and died two days later.
Mr Casey fractured his skull on impact with the ground and the court heard that Kevin Dinan then punched Mr Casey repeatedly to the face and head while he lay prostrate on the ground.
Counsel for the State, Deirdre Murphy SC, told the Court of Criminal Appeal that Judge Moran had erred in principle by placing excessive weight on the contention that the attack perpetrated by Harry Dinan was essentially a “one punch case”.
She said that this was not a classic “one punch case”, where a victim dies following some event after the infliction of a single punch or blow, but rather an unprovoked attack on an innocent bystander who was entirely unprotected.
Ms Murphy said that, having regard to concept of a one punch case, Judge Moran correctly identified an appropriate sentence of 10 years for each man, but then proceeded to err and effect a “double counting” exercise by further reducing the sentences imposed on account of this factor.
She said that Judge Moran also erred in law by failing to give his reasons for the differentiation in sentence imposed on each of the ac- cused.
Counsel for Harry Dinan, Isobel Kennedy SC, said that the case was indeed a classic manslaughter case involving one blow, as the medical evidence before the court was that Mr Casey was struck in the face, fell backwards, struck the back of his head and sustained a serious head injury.
She said that rather than beginning with a 10-year sentence, Judge Moran identified a sentence of seven years as an appropriate starting point and was perfectly entitled to reduce this down by a further two years having regard to additional mitigating factors in her client’s favour.
David Sutton SC, for Kevin Dinan, adopted Ms Kennedy’s submission and added that Judge Moran correctly identified his client’s lack of violent history and his youth as differentiating factors between the two accused men when imposing sentence.
Mr Justice McKechnie said the court found that the State’s assertion was correct and that Judge Moran must have considered the concept of a “one punch case” to be a “vital ingredient” when deciding that the appropriate starting point for sentence was 10 years.
He said that, having already considered this factor, it was therefore not permissible to further reduce the sentence from this point and to do so was an exercise of “double counting”.