The Court of Appeal upheld Martin Reilly’s burglary conviction but reduced his sentence from eight years to six, keeping the final two years suspended. The varied sentence runs from the date the original sentence was imposed.
Reilly was convicted on 3 May 2013 of burgling a private residence on Cashel Road in Clonmel on 27 June 2011. The court said €30,000 and £3,745 sterling were taken. The homeowner, a restaurateur, returned from work to find the house disturbed and a window open.
At trial, gardaí said they saw Reilly carrying a bag or pillowcase near the time of the burglary. They testified that he ran when he saw their patrol car and dropped the bag in waste ground while being pursued. Gardaí recovered it with the stolen money. Their evidence also described a slimmer, younger male nearby who ran after Reilly shouted to him.
Reilly’s appeal challenged the prosecution’s disclosure, the investigation of a youth who later said he had acted alone, a prosecution opening reference to “signing on”, and the trial judge’s reference to common design. The appeal court rejected each ground.
On disclosure, the court noted that the youth had visited Reilly’s solicitor before going to a garda station with Reilly’s partner, and concluded the alleged confession was already known to the defence. DNA and fingerprint evidence from the pillowcase emerged on the day of trial. The DNA was not Reilly’s. The court considered the evidence unlikely to assist the defence, given that the pillowcase came from the homeowner’s house and the prosecution case allowed for more than one participant.
The court said prosecution counsel had referred to the gardaí knowing Reilly from around Tipperary and seeing him “sign on”. It found there had been no reference to signing on as a bail condition, and said jurors would understand the phrase as referring to social welfare. It also found the common-design direction unobjectionable in light of the prosecution evidence that another person may have been involved.
Turning to sentence, the court described the burglary as serious, citing the substantial sum taken, the disturbance to the home and Reilly’s previous convictions, which included burglary and robbery. It nevertheless found the eight-year starting point too high and substituted six years, with two years suspended.