The Court of Appeal has found that sentences for two of eight burglary counts were unduly lenient and replaced them with terms requiring immediate custody. The court left the sentences on the other six counts unchanged.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to eight burglaries before Limerick Circuit Court. On counts 1 to 6, the trial judge imposed five-year terms to run concurrently, backdated to 1 October 2014. On counts 7 and 8, the judge imposed two-year terms consecutive to the first six counts but suspended both in full for seven years. The judge declined to activate any part of earlier suspended sentences imposed in 2011.
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, arguing that the sentences were unduly lenient. The applicant submitted that counts 7 and 8 were committed while the respondent was on bail and during the currency of earlier suspended sentences for similar offences. It argued that the wholly suspended terms did not reflect those aggravating circumstances. The respondent’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge had applied proper principles, though the sentences might be considered lenient.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentences on counts 7 and 8 significantly departed from the norm. It said the legislative policy is that offences committed while on bail should attract consecutive sentences and that, save in very exceptional circumstances, such a sentence should involve some actual custody. The court accepted that the respondent’s admissions and efforts to address heroin addiction were mitigating factors, but held that they did not justify suspending the sentences in full.
The court quashed the sentences on counts 7 and 8 and resentenced the respondent. It imposed a three-year headline term on each count, suspending the final two years of each for seven years. The respondent must serve one year on each count, consecutively to the sentences on counts 1 to 6. The bond remains €100, on the same terms as before.
The court said it would not interfere with counts 1 to 6 because the review had been confined to counts 7 and 8. Its order therefore changed the custody terms for those two counts while leaving the other sentences intact.