The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Doyle’s appeal against the overall sentence imposed for burglary and arson, finding no error of principle and concluding that the sentence was not excessive.
Doyle pleaded guilty to burglary and arson on 17 June 2015. The sentencing judge reactivated a three-year suspended sentence imposed for robbery and imposed a further seven years for the burglary and arson, consecutive to the robbery sentence. The final two years of the seven-year term were suspended, subject to conditions including two years’ supervision by the Probation and Welfare Service after release.
The appeal challenged the totality of the sentence, the weight given to mitigation including remorse, and the consideration given to rehabilitation. The defence argued that a greater part of the sentence should have been suspended to encourage Doyle to take part in rehabilitation programmes in prison. Counsel conceded that the reactivation of the three-year sentence could not be challenged.
The judgment recounted evidence about the offences. In the robbery, in November 2012, an injured party was assaulted and had a bag taken. The court was told that Doyle admitted the offence and was found with the injured party’s phone. The suspended sentence had been imposed in May 2014 in the hope that Doyle would address his heroin addiction.
In October 2014, an 81-year-old man left his Cork home to go shopping. The judgment said CCTV showed Doyle speaking with him and later heading towards the man’s home. When the man returned, the house was on fire. Investigators found that the back door had been forced and three fires started upstairs. Doyle later admitted burglary and arson. The house had to be rebuilt, and the insurance company’s loss was stated as €153,727. The man was homeless for seven months and was particularly concerned about the loss of mementos of his deceased wife.
The Court of Appeal said the burglary and arson were extremely serious, and that a seven-year sentence for the arson, which destroyed the home, could not be said to be excessive. It accepted that the sentencing judge had considered aggravating and mitigating factors and had sought to incorporate rehabilitation by suspending the final two years subject to probation supervision. The court said the judge had not been specifically asked to structure the sentence around participation in prison rehabilitation programmes. It dismissed the appeal.