The Court of Appeal has quashed a five-month prison sentence imposed on Kristian Friel for threatening to kill or cause serious harm to a Garda, finding it was unduly lenient. The court said the sentencing judge had not explained how he assessed the offence’s gravity or arrived at the sentence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The appeal concerned only the sentence for the May 2016 offence on Bill No 29/16. Friel had pleaded guilty to that offence. The five-month sentence had been ordered to run consecutively to a separate five-month sentence for an assault causing harm. That earlier sentence was not under appeal.
The Court of Appeal heard that Friel had called Gardaí while feeling suicidal. When Detective Garda Matthew Donnellan arrived in Thomastown, Friel was outside a restaurant, shouting and drinking cider while holding a knife. He threatened Donnellan, who retreated until other Gardaí arrived. Friel also threatened two other Gardaí, refused directions to drop the knife, held it to his own neck and then swung it towards Gardaí after pepper spray was used. Gardaí subdued him with a baton. No one was injured.
The sentencing judge had imposed five months for the threat offence and taken the knife-possession charge and two further threats into consideration. The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing judge had sought relevant information and had significant personal and psychiatric circumstances before him. It also rejected the DPP’s arguments that possession of the knife could not be treated as aggravating, or that the judge was wrong to consider Friel’s intoxication in light of his circumstances.
But the appeal court said the sentencing judge had not set out the offence’s gravity against the available penalties or explained the discounts allowed for aggravating and mitigating factors. It considered the offending moderately serious, citing the knife, the threats, the attempt to make physical contact with Gardaí and the fact they were performing their duties. Friel’s intoxication against the background of mental health issues, his plea and remorse, and the absence of injury were also relevant.
The court said a headline sentence of two to four years could have been justified before further allowance for mitigation. It added that the five-month term might have been within range had the case been tried summarily, but it was not. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and said it would resentence Friel. The supplied judgment text ends at that point and does not state the replacement sentence.