The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient a sentence imposed on Michael Hanney for firearm offences. The court described the sentence as “very lenient” and at the “absolute outer limits of leniency”, but said it was not so unduly lenient that it should be set aside.
Hanney was sentenced in Dublin Circuit Court in July 2016 to five years in prison, with the final two years suspended. The sentence also required 18 months of Probation Service supervision after his release. The DPP sought a review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The Court of Appeal refused that application; it did not substitute a different sentence.
The indictment covered an air pistol recovered from Hanney’s home in May 2015 and a separate incident in July 2015. In the latter, gardaí stopped a vehicle Hanney was driving in the Sillogue area of Ballymun, near the IKEA store. Before the search began, he told them there was a firearm in a bag in the passenger footwell and took responsibility for it. The bag contained a Russian-made pistol with its serial number erased, a silencer and ammunition. Hanney admitted transporting the items at another person’s request and said he had accidentally discharged a shot. Gardaí found no evidence to confirm that account of a discharge.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had understated the seriousness of the offending, placed too much weight on mitigation and failed to give proper effect to the presumptive minimum sentence and the appropriate range for the offences. The DPP submitted that the firearm, silencer and ammunition together made the case a mid-range one, warranting seven to ten years before mitigation.
The appeal court agreed the offences were very serious, particularly because the firearm’s serial number had been erased and it was found with a suitable silencer and ammunition. It also treated Hanney’s conduct before and during the investigation, his admissions and early guilty plea as significant. The court noted his age at the time, his support for family members, community involvement and employment prospects.
The court said those mitigating factors could support reducing a higher starting sentence and partly suspending the term. It concluded that the sentencing judge could depart from the presumptive minimum in the circumstances. Although the resulting sentence was exceptionally lenient, the DPP’s application was refused.