The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review a fully suspended three-year sentence for arson, finding that it was lenient but not unduly lenient.
The judgment, delivered on 31 March 2017, concerned an appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had given excessive weight to personal mitigation and insufficient weight to the danger to residents and damage to two homes.
The man had pleaded guilty to arson and was sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in April 2016. The Court of Appeal said the sentence was three years’ imprisonment, suspended in full for three years, subject to conditions and a €100 bond.
The fire occurred in November 2012 at a flat on North Circular Road, Dublin 7. Residents had extinguished an earlier fire in the flat the previous evening. In the early hours of the next morning, the flat was engulfed in flames and residents of two buildings were evacuated. The man was found outside after apparently jumping or falling from an upstairs window.
In a statement to gardaí, he said he had lost his keys, was angry, had taken a drug he called “Snow Blow”, and set papers and DVDs alight. He said he had been depressed and paranoid and that the incident was unplanned and connected to an intention to take his own life. A note to that effect was found in the flat. The judgment recorded damage of €9,000 to number 12, which was uninsured, and €22,531.65 to number 14, later recovered from an insurer.
The DPP’s grounds included that the sentencing judge had wrongly treated the offence as unplanned despite evidence of earlier fires, and had failed to account adequately for the risk to life, the damage and the man’s previous convictions. The Court of Appeal noted the judge’s consideration of his progress towards becoming drug-free, accommodation, support and psychological and probation reports.
The court called arson near homes a crime of utmost seriousness and said the potential for injury and death was significant. It nevertheless distinguished this case from other arson appeals and said the suspended term was substantial and subject to onerous conditions. It also noted that, by the time of the appeal, the man had complied with the conditions and had not come to gardaí’s attention for almost five years since the offence.
The court concluded that, in the particular and unusual circumstances, the sentence did not cross the high threshold of undue leniency. It dismissed the DPP’s application; the suspended sentence remained in place.