The Court of Appeal has quashed a sentence it found unduly lenient and resentenced a man to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, with the final 12 months suspended subject to probation conditions.
The ruling followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which allows a review on grounds of undue leniency. The court said the original sentence was either 18 months or one year: the court order recorded 18 months, while the sentencing transcript indicated one year. The new sentence is consecutive to an earlier sentence of three-and-a-half years, of which the final six months had been suspended.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to criminal damage, endangerment, assault and trespass arising from events on 5 January 2021. The judgment said he was on bail and staying with the victim and her daughter. During an argument in the victim’s car, he punched the visor and windscreen, causing €1,676 in damage, then pulled the steering wheel as she drove towards a Garda station. The car spun across traffic lanes and blocked two lanes. An ambulance crew stopped and contacted gardaí; the respondent fled.
The judgment said the respondent later entered the victim’s home through a kitchen window after she had refused him entry. He assaulted her, stopping when her young daughter entered the room. He remained at the property for two days. The victim’s impact statement described ongoing fear, counselling, PTSD, panic attacks and stress-induced hair loss.
The Director argued that the sentencing judge had failed to set an appropriate headline sentence and had given too much weight to mitigation, including a late guilty plea and the respondent’s childhood trauma. The respondent disputed that there had been an error of principle and relied on the guilty plea, his work history and progress in custody.
The appeal court held that the endangerment was serious because it put the victim and other road users at risk, and was committed while the respondent was on bail. It found the sentence substantially below what was appropriate, quashed it and resentenced the respondent de novo. The court set a five-year headline sentence, reduced it to four years for mitigation, then to three-and-a-half years to reflect totality. It suspended the final 12 months on condition that he attend the probation service for one year and comply with its directions. The sentence is consecutive to the earlier sentence.