The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Delaney’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for three burglaries, leaving in place an aggregate eight-year prison sentence with its final year suspended for two years.
In a judgment delivered on 30 January 2020, the court rejected arguments that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a sentence consecutive to another consecutive sentence, and that the overall term was disproportionate. Delaney’s appeal concerned the sentences for three burglary bills; he did not appeal a separate drugs sentence, which the court noted as relevant context.
The burglaries involved the Clonsilla Inn, the Siam Thai Restaurant and Monkstown Rugby Club. The sentencing evidence was that the incidents occurred on separate dates. At the inn, two men were disturbed by a staff member after forcing a side gate; cash was later reported missing from an employee’s purse. At the restaurant, alcohol valued at €3,000 was taken. At the rugby club, cash, equipment and stock were stolen, and damage was caused to the premises.
The sentencing judge imposed three-and-a-half years for the first burglary, followed by one-and-a-half years and three years consecutively for the other two. A separate 18-month sentence for possession of drugs with intent to supply was concurrent with the first burglary sentence. The final 12 months of the overall eight-year term were suspended for two years, subject to conditions including keeping the peace, good behaviour and probation supervision.
On appeal, Delaney’s counsel accepted that the individual sentences for the three burglaries were not being challenged. The argument was instead that the later sentences should have run concurrently with each other, and that the judge had not reduced the combined term enough to reflect totality and Delaney’s personal circumstances.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had discretion over how to structure consecutive terms where offending occurred while Delaney was on bail. It considered the separate burglaries sufficiently serious to justify making each sentence consecutive. The court cited, among other factors, offending on bail in two cases, relevant previous convictions, night-time burglary, damage to premises, the value of stolen property, planning and the targeting of a community facility. It also noted the confrontation with an occupier during the inn burglary and the resulting trauma.
The court found that suspending the final year reduced the aggregate term by an effective 12.5 per cent. Although it said a greater reduction might have been made, that adjustment was within the sentencing judge’s proper discretion. It found no error of principle and concluded the sentence was not disproportionately severe.