The Court of Appeal has dismissed Liam McCann’s appeal against sentences imposed for three offences arising from a 2014 incident at a family home in Co. Wexford. The court said the effective three-year sentence, with the final six months suspended, was measured and appropriate.
McCann had pleaded guilty to damaging property, unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle and false imprisonment. In November 2015, Wexford Circuit Criminal Court imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months, 18 months and three years respectively. The appeal challenged the decision to impose custody, the weight given to deterrence over rehabilitation, the sentencing judge’s treatment of culpability, and the suspension of only the final six months.
The Court of Appeal judgment said McCann forcibly entered Kathleen Brown’s home on 11 August 2014 while she was caring for her three young children. He broke a window, put the two older children in a kitchen cupboard and took two knives. The judgment said he was highly agitated, demanded that Brown contact gardaí and said people were after him. Brown and the children later fled to a neighbour’s home. McCann took Brown’s car and crashed it into a wall at the house before fleeing. He was later found by a garda near the River Slaney and, when interviewed, made full admissions.
The court described the incident as a serious offence that left Brown and the children fearing for their safety. It acknowledged that McCann did not intend to physically harm them and did not do so, but said Brown’s fear was understandable and her victim impact statement described lasting effects on her confidence in the safety of her home.
The judgment also identified mitigating factors: McCann had no previous convictions, had pleaded guilty and had made efforts to rehabilitate. A psychological report prepared for the lower court said he met the criteria for depression at the time of the offences and was at low risk of future violence so long as he remained drug free. The judgment said prolonged alcohol and drug abuse before the incident were significant contributing factors.
The appeal court was satisfied that the sentencing judge had taken account of the absence of intent to harm and found no error of principle in the sentencing approach. It concluded the sentences properly reflected the seriousness and lasting impact of the offences alongside the mitigating factors. The appeal was dismissed.