The Court of Appeal has dismissed Darragh Dunne’s appeal against the severity of a four-year sentence for seven burglaries, finding the sentence was within the trial judge’s discretion and not too severe.
Dunne had pleaded guilty to five burglary counts on one bill of indictment and one count on each of two others. The Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed 28 months’ imprisonment on each bill, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal described the resulting post-mitigation sentence as four years and said it could not find an error of principle.
The offences took place between March and August 2019. Four of the five incidents in Blanchardstown involved no property being taken, according to evidence at the sentencing hearing. In another, a cashbox containing €400 was taken from a Swords business. Evidence was that €6,860 in cash and a cheque for €3,156 were taken from the Abbey Tavern in Howth; the cheque was later cancelled and the cash was not recovered. A separate burglary in Leixlip involved cash. The Director of Public Prosecutions put that amount at €2,476, while the sentencing evidence recorded €2,475.
The appellant argued the sentence was disproportionate and that the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to rehabilitation. The judge had heard evidence of Dunne’s drug treatment, clean urinalysis tests from early 2022, guilty pleas, cooperation and family responsibilities. Dunne had spent 14 months in custody before being admitted to bail to attend a residential treatment course at Coolmine.
The prosecution submitted that the offences included a same-day spree, criminal damage, a confrontation with an owner, previous convictions and offending while on bail. The Court of Appeal said Dunne had 43 previous convictions, 27 for road traffic offences, and accepted there was cogent evidence of his rehabilitation efforts. It also recognised the challenges he faced, including his mother’s death and the diagnosis of ASD in one of his children.
The court said rehabilitation does not necessarily take priority in every sentence. It held that the sentencing judge had expressly considered Dunne’s progress but was entitled to conclude that the offending was too serious to suspend the remainder of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.