The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence imposed on Brandon Crosbie for a series of driving offences, including reckless endangerment and dangerous driving.
The appeal concerned a sentence imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 7 February 2018 after guilty pleas. The indictment contained 21 offences, 18 under the Road Traffic Acts. The sentencing judge imposed three and a half years on count No. 1 and took the other offences into consideration.
The offences arose from a police pursuit on 28 April 2017. Gardaí responding to a report of erratic driving on Coultry Road, Ballymun, followed a car through Ballymun and Santry towards Finglas, where it stopped near Charleston shopping centre. The Court of Appeal said the car was driven at high speed, at times on the wrong side of the road and through red lights. It collided with a Ford Fiesta and later crashed into two other vehicles. The latter vehicles were extensively damaged and both drivers were injured. The driver and passengers left the car and tried to escape; Crosbie was arrested near the scene, made admissions and expressed remorse.
Crosbie, who was 18 at the time, had 47 previous convictions, including six for dangerous driving. The judgment also described his difficult background, substance abuse from a young age, periods in Oberstown and estrangement from his family. He had no fixed abode and had worked at McDonald’s.
On appeal, Crosbie argued that the sentencing judge had failed to structure the sentence to balance punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. He submitted that a partly suspended sentence with supervision and rehabilitation programmes should have been considered. The prosecution argued that the seriousness of the offending and his record supported the sentence.
The Court of Appeal said the case involved all 21 offences, rather than one isolated incident of reckless endangerment, and that the overall sentence therefore had to be substantially greater than one for a single incident. It found no basis to say the sentence was unduly severe and said a higher sentence might have been appropriate. The judges considered whether a higher term with part suspended might facilitate rehabilitation, but concluded the sentence fell within the Circuit Court judge’s margin of discretion. They dismissed the appeal and did not alter the sentence.