The Court of Appeal has re-sentenced Andy Donohue to six years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended, after finding that the sentencing judge did not give enough weight to his rehabilitation prospects. The court otherwise rejected his appeal against the severity of his sentence for arson.
Donohue had pleaded guilty to setting fire to St. John’s House in Tallaght, which was designated to accommodate applicants for international protection but was not yet occupied as a residence. At sentencing, Detective Garda Monahan gave evidence that Donohue used petrol bombs. A security guard inside escaped unharmed. CCTV captured the offence, and Donohue’s DNA was found on a lighter at the scene. The fire caused damage valued at about €28,000.
Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed six years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended, from a 10-year headline sentence. The sentence was backdated to 27 May 2024. Donohue, who was 18 at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions, argued that the headline sentence was excessive and that the court had not given sufficient weight to his personal circumstances and mitigation.
The Court of Appeal held that the 10-year headline sentence was within the sentencing judge’s acceptable range. It agreed that the arson was very serious and that its racial and political motivation was a significant aggravating factor. The court said the attack was planned: Donohue went to the premises twice, returned with materials to start a fire after failing to gain access, and used an accelerant. The guard’s presence meant the fire posed a risk to her life and to firefighters. The court also considered the targeting of a building intended for vulnerable people and the protests preceding the arson.
The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s treatment of mitigation. The judge had taken account of Donohue’s youth, lack of previous convictions, early guilty plea, academic ability and work history. The Court of Appeal said giving his age and vulnerability weight both when setting the headline sentence and again at the mitigation stage would amount to double counting. It noted that the original sentence reflected a 40% reduction from the headline term.
However, the court found that suspending only one year did not sufficiently account for Donohue’s rehabilitation prospects, including his positive engagement with education in Wheatfield prison. It quashed the Circuit Court sentence and re-sentenced him as of 7 October 2025: six years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended on the same conditions imposed below, amended to reflect the two-year suspension. The 10-year headline sentence and 40% mitigation discount remained the basis for the new sentence.