The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to increase the five-year prison sentences imposed on Michael Finlay and Dean Byrne for possessing a firearm and ammunition.
The court said the sentences were “lenient, even very lenient”, but were not unduly lenient and remained within the sentencing court’s discretion. It found no error of principle and refused the application.
Finlay and Byrne were convicted after a trial in the Special Criminal Court on 16 June 2016. On 1 July that year, they received concurrent five-year terms for each offence. Finlay’s sentences were dated from 5 June 2014 and Byrne’s from 8 May 2016.
The convictions followed a Garda surveillance operation in Tallaght on 5 June 2014. Officers followed a previously stolen Renault Kangoo van. A garda who approached with a firearm drawn saw two men inside and Finlay holding a pistol. Finlay dropped it when asked. Both men wore disguises, including false beards and sunglasses; Finlay also wore an official An Post jacket. The pistol had a fully loaded magazine and a bullet in the chamber. The van had false registration plates, and accelerants were found in its rear.
The DPP argued the sentencing court had placed the offences too low on the gravity scale and should have used headline sentences of about eight years. The appeal grounds also challenged the weight given to mitigating factors and the respondents’ “not guilty no contest” responses at the start of trial. The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing court had graded the offending too low and that headline sentences around eight years were appropriate.
However, the court said there were clear reasons to reduce those sentences: the respondents’ plea responses shortened the trial and removed some uncertainty; both were of previous good character; and they cooperated immediately at arrest, making no attempt to use the firearm to escape. Their responses were not guilty pleas, and the prosecution still had to prove its case.
The five-year terms were the presumptive minimum, but the Court of Appeal noted the sentencing court could have imposed less if it found grounds to depart from that minimum. It found no justification to do so had been established. The appeal concerned whether the sentences were unduly lenient; the court refused the DPP’s application and left the sentences in place.