The Court of Appeal has set aside a seven-year prison sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and serious bodily harm, finding errors in the sentencing judge’s approach. It said it would impose a replacement sentence after a further sentence hearing.
The appeal concerned a sentence imposed at Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 17 February 2014. The man had also been disqualified from driving for 30 years. His appeal argued, among other grounds, that the sentence was excessive and that the judge had wrongly treated him as having retrieved his car keys from a bar assistant.
The collision happened at about 1.45am on 7 April 2013 at a roundabout in Skibbereen. The judgment said the car entered the roundabout at about 80km/h, where the speed limit was 50km/h. A 22-year-old passenger died at the scene. Another passenger suffered serious spinal injuries and was rendered quadriplegic. The judgment said the remaining casualties recovered fully.
A blood sample taken after the crash contained 204mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood; the legal limit at the time was 50mg. The driver admitted driving and being involved in the collision. The sentencing judge described the driving as dangerous to the point of reckless and said the case was at the “absolute apex” of dangerous driving cases. He said the case warranted a 10-year sentence before mitigating factors were considered, then imposed seven years.
The Court of Appeal compared the sentence with eight other dangerous-driving cases cited by the appellant. It said two had resulted in five-year terms and the other six in shorter terms. Allowing for a margin of appreciation, the court found the seven-year sentence out of line with those decisions. It held that the sentencing judge had erred in treating the case as at the absolute apex and as attracting a 10-year starting point.
The appeal court also found no evidence to support the sentencing judge’s conclusion that the driver had inveigled the keys back from the bar assistant. Because the judge had treated that as an aggravating factor, the court found a further error of principle.
The court did not determine the replacement sentence in this judgment. It set aside the original sentence and said it would impose a new sentence following a further hearing. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later hearing.