The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review a fully suspended sentence imposed on Stephen Walsh for two offences involving an apparent handgun and threats to intimidate two women.
The court said the sentence was “extremely lenient” and that the offences probably deserved an immediate custodial term. But it declined to find the sentence unduly lenient, noting that the review came about 15 months after sentencing and that Mr Walsh had remained at liberty and complied with the conditions imposed.
Mr Walsh pleaded guilty in November 2015 at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to two counts of having an article in a public place with intent to intimidate Frances Nevin and Leanne Nevin, contrary to section 9(5) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. In December 2015, he received concurrent terms of two years and six months, suspended in full for three years. Conditions included 18 months’ supervision by the Probation Service and avoiding contact with the women.
The judgment said a December 2013 dispute escalated when Mr Walsh threatened to kill Ms Nevin and revealed a handgun tucked into his waistband. Both women saw it and feared for their lives. The judgment recorded an allegation that he also threatened Leanne Nevin. The weapon fired pellets and was not a firearm in the common use of that term, but it resembled one and appeared capable of killing or seriously injuring them.
The DPP argued that the offending was serious, that Mr Walsh had previous violent convictions, and that the sentencing judge had given too much weight to mitigation and rehabilitation. The application also cited the women’s fear in their neighbourhood and the effect on Leanne Nevin’s education.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the victims’ continuing fear, which it said was prolonged by Mr Walsh living in the same locality. It also noted that no incidents of concern had arisen during the intervening period and that he had cooperated with probation to date.
The court said a suspended sentence remained punitive and that Mr Walsh continued to face the possibility of serving all or part of it if he breached its conditions. Given the delay and his conduct since sentencing, the court refused the DPP’s application.