The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against the severity of a seven-year sentence for setting fires in his family home while his four children were inside. The sentence included two years suspended for two years after his release, subject to conditions.
In its judgment delivered on 14 December 2018, the court said it could see no error in principle in the sentence imposed by Cork Circuit Criminal Court. It said a five-year custodial sentence was the minimum that could have been imposed in the circumstances.
The man had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity to the arson, which took place on 18 December 2016. He was sentenced on 29 June 2017. The Court of Appeal recorded that he was 50 at sentencing and that the house was jointly owned by him and his wife and was home to their four children, then aged two, six, eight and 11.
Evidence summarised in the judgment was that he set fires in two bedrooms while the children were in the house, got the children out, then set a third fire after locking the front door. The judgment said it was unclear from the sentencing transcript whether the two children who had been in one bedroom were taken out separately from the others. His oldest child raised the alarm, and neighbours persuaded him to leave. He said he had intended to take his own life; the court noted circumstances that cast doubt on that account.
The judgment recorded that repairs were estimated at €85,000 and that the wife and children were living in accommodation provided by the HSE at the time of sentencing. The wife’s victim impact account described the family’s losses and the children’s fear of their father. The court also considered a probation report that described him as having limited insight into the harm caused and as presenting a moderate risk of reoffending.
The appeal argued that the sentencing judge had set the headline sentence too high and had given insufficient weight to mitigation, including the guilty plea, lack of previous convictions and work history. The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, including the danger to the children, the impact on the family, the man’s age, work record and previous good character. It upheld the sentence and its conditions, including probation supervision and no contact with his wife or children except in accordance with an order of a competent court.