The Court of Appeal has dismissed Christopher Dunne’s appeal against the severity of a five-year prison sentence for burglary, with the final year suspended.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore on 9 February 2016, concerned an offence to which Dunne had pleaded guilty. Naas Circuit Court imposed the sentence on 25 July 2014. The appeal argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to mitigation, Dunne’s personal and family circumstances, his guilty plea and rehabilitation, and that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate.
The burglary took place at a house in Oldchapel Wood, Naas, at about 3.40am on 15 March 2011. A resident saw two men carrying torches approach the house. The judgment says they ran out when gardaí arrived. Dunne, whom the prosecuting sergeant recognised, swung a baseball bat at the sergeant and threatened to kill and behead him. He also swung the bat at a garda and pulled her back while trying to get into a car. The sergeant suffered a hand wound that was treated at hospital; both gardaí were described as traumatised. The householder’s conservatory lock had been broken, but the men did not gain access to the main part of the house and no property was taken.
At sentencing, the court heard that Dunne had 125 previous convictions, including 97 predating this offence. The judgment also recorded that he was 27, had three young children, lived with a supportive partner and had been addicted to heroin when the offence occurred. By sentencing, he was drug-free, had attended rehabilitative courses in prison and was on an enhanced regime. The sentencing judge said he would have imposed eight years after a jury conviction, but imposed five years and later suspended the final 12 months.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that the sentencing judge had failed to identify the offence’s seriousness. It pointed to the late guilty plea, the attack on gardaí, the weapons and the fact that the house was occupied. It said the plea had received substantial credit, and that rehabilitation, personal circumstances and other mitigation were sufficiently reflected in the sentence and the suspended year. The court concluded the sentence was proportionate and just and dismissed the appeal. It did not alter the sentence.