The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review a five-year sentence suspended for five years for a man who pleaded guilty to robbery arising from a violent break-in at a Cork home.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 19 December 2008, concerned Cuan de Paor. The DPP argued that the sentence imposed on 22 February 2008 by Cork Circuit Criminal Court was unduly lenient. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, finding the DPP had not discharged the burden of showing the sentence was unduly lenient.
The break-in took place at about 7.30am on 17 December 2006. Three people entered a home in a Cork suburb, where a couple and their 15-year-old son were present. The adults were restrained, and the boy was tied and gagged. The intruders took bank card details, a laptop, mobile phone and Christmas presents; €2,400 was withdrawn using the stolen cards.
The court noted that de Paor was not convicted of aggravated burglary or making a threat to kill. The prosecution had accepted his not guilty pleas on those charges and expressly disclaimed reliance on common design to hold him responsible for the gun or threat. A detective sergeant described his participation as lesser than that of the other two involved and said he had been “basically ... doing their bidding”. The sergeant endorsed the factual content of a probation report and described de Paor as genuinely remorseful.
The judgment said de Paor was 19 at the time and had no previous convictions. It also considered his guilty pleas, cooperation with gardaí, youth, and progress after the offence, including education, counselling and addiction treatment. The sentencing judge had imposed five years’ imprisonment for robbery and suspended the term subject to payment of €10,000, probation supervision for two years, addiction treatment, urine testing as directed, continued work or training, and good behaviour for five years.
The appeal court said the trial judge had taken account of the seriousness of the offending as well as mitigating circumstances. Although it described the sentence as unusually lenient, it concluded there was evidential support for the judge’s decision and no demonstrated error in principle. The court therefore left the sentence undisturbed.