The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dan Coakley’s appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed for dangerous driving causing death, finding that the sentence fell within the range available to the sentencing judge.
The appeal concerned a four-year-and-nine-month prison sentence, with the final 12 months suspended, imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court in Cork on 13 May 2022. The sentence also included a ten-year driving disqualification. A lesser concurrent sentence was imposed for drunk driving, while a charge of driving a defective vehicle was taken into consideration.
The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered ex tempore on 13 March 2023, said the appeal did not challenge the six-year headline sentence set before mitigation. The argument was that the sentencing judge had not allowed enough credit for mitigating factors. These included cooperation with gardaí, an early guilty plea, remorse, and efforts to address alcohol difficulties. The judgment also referred to a history of mental health issues.
The offending arose from a collision at about 11.30am on 8 November 2020 in Inchigeelagh, County Cork. The court said the Audi driven by Coakley crossed the centre line and collided head-on with another car. Its driver, Gary Service, was injured. His father, David Service, who was a front-seat passenger, died from his injuries 18 days later. The judgment said the older man had underlying health conditions and that his injuries proved fatal against that background. Gary Service had injuries to his knee, back and shoulder and remained anxious about driving at the time of sentencing.
A breath test at Macroom Garda station recorded 99 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, compared with a legal limit of 22 micrograms. The court also noted defects in the Audi’s steering and suspension, but said they did not appear to have been a major contributing factor to the collision.
The appellant relied on DPP v Flynn, a case in which the Court of Appeal had reduced a six-year sentence to three years with one year suspended. The court said that decision offered limited assistance because it arose from an undue-leniency review and involved different circumstances, including a €20,000 fine and the reimprisonment of a person who had been released.
The Court of Appeal said it could intervene only if an error in principle had been established. It concluded that the sentence, while toward the severe end of the spectrum, remained within the available range and dismissed the appeal.