The Court of Appeal has resentenced Joseph Shannon to three years’ imprisonment on each of eight burglary counts, suspending the final nine months of each sentence. All sentences are to run concurrently and are backdated to 21 February 2018, giving credit for 14 weeks spent on remand in these matters.
The judgment, delivered on 30 May 2018, followed a review sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The court had previously found the sentences imposed by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court unduly lenient. Those original sentences were three years on three counts, with the balance of each suspended, while five other counts were taken into consideration.
The Court of Appeal said three-year headline sentences were within the sentencing judge’s proper range, but a separate sentence should have been imposed on every count. It ordered three years on all eight counts, suspending nine months of each to recognise Shannon’s progress towards rehabilitation, guilty pleas, co-operation and personal circumstances, including addiction.
The counts related to burglaries in Dublin and nearby areas between April and August 2014. The court described incidents involving occupied homes, confrontations with residents and a series of burglaries on 31 August. In one incident, Shannon entered a woman’s bedroom while she was in bed and took her phone and purse. In another, a householder returned with his young daughter, saw signs of a break-in and fled with her to seek help. The court also noted that some stolen items were recovered, while other property and cash were not.
At the original sentencing, the court heard evidence that Shannon had engaged with addiction services and completed part of a residential treatment programme. In January 2017, the appeal court deferred resentencing for a year, saying it hoped to deal with the case non-custodially if his rehabilitation progress continued.
The appeal court later heard that Shannon had maintained progress for some months and obtained a hotel work placement, but had relapsed and pleaded guilty to a further similar burglary. The court said it could no longer take a non-custodial approach and that custody was required for retribution and deterrence. It had indicated that it might remove the suspended portions of the original sentences, but its final order instead suspended the last nine months of each sentence.