The Court of Appeal found sentences imposed on Gordon O’Rourke for theft and giving false information unduly lenient, then added compensation and probation supervision conditions to his suspended sentence. It left his 240 hours of community service in place.
O’Rourke had pleaded guilty to stealing €44,578 from a Supervalu in Inverin, Co. Galway, and giving false information. He had reported that he was abducted at gunpoint and that the shop was robbed by an assailant. The judgment says CCTV discrepancies led to his arrest, after which he admitted the abduction had been faked and that he had taken part in a plan to rob the supermarket. He said he received €7,000; none of the stolen money was recovered.
The Circuit Court imposed 240 hours of community service for the theft and a two-year prison term, suspended in full for three years, for giving false information. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for a review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, arguing that the sentences did not adequately reflect the offences and their aggravating features, including the breach of trust, planning, false account, lack of restitution and failure to identify accomplices.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the sentencing judge’s careful reasoning and the weight due to a trial judge’s assessment. It nevertheless held that the combined penalties did not provide a sufficiently strong general deterrent for the “egregious” deception. On that basis, it quashed the sentences and resentenced O’Rourke.
The court reimposed the same sentence lengths: 240 hours of community service for theft and two years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, for giving false information. It made the suspension conditional on keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, submitting to Probation Service supervision and complying with its directions, and paying €10,000 compensation to the injured party within three years.
At least €5,000 must be paid within two years, with the remaining €5,000 due on or before 20 April 2019. The court said the Probation Officer could bring the matter back before the court if O’Rourke failed to comply. The appeal court did not replace the community service order or impose immediate custody.