The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review a three-year suspended sentence imposed on Neil Kelly for setting fire to a garda’s car at Scarriff Garda Station.
The judgment, delivered on 30 May 2016, concerned a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court on 1 May 2015 for an offence under section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The DPP argued that the sentence was unduly lenient, citing the seriousness of the arson, the impact on the victim, the weight given to compensation and mitigation, and Kelly’s previous convictions.
The court recounted that the car had been seized earlier that evening after Garda Troy found it uninsured. A companion, Mr Maloney, had been abusive and made a remark about a “silver spark”. Kelly intervened on the garda’s behalf at the roadside. About two hours later, Kelly and two associates returned to the station in another car and set fire to Garda Troy’s vehicle. Kelly initially gave a false account of his movements but later admitted involvement.
The fire caused Garda Troy significant distress and financial loss. A dress intended for a participant in her forthcoming wedding had been taken from the car and left on a grass verge. The judgment said Kelly’s family contributed €6,000 in compensation. It also recorded that the sentencing court had secured restitution of €11,200 from Kelly and his co-accused, and that the DPP considered too much credit had been given for that payment.
The Court of Appeal said arson at a garda station was an attack on the rule of law and would normally call for imprisonment. It noted, however, that Kelly had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, was remorseful, had no relevant previous convictions, and had not come to garda attention in the two years before sentence. The court also noted that he had intervened when Maloney was disrespectful to Garda Troy earlier that evening.
Applying the statutory test, the judges said the question was whether the sentence substantially departed from the appropriate range because of an error of principle—not whether the appeal court itself would have imposed prison. They found the sentencing judge had recognised the offence’s seriousness and considered relevant factors. Calling it a borderline case, the court concluded Kelly was just on the permissible side of the line and refused the DPP’s application. The suspended sentence therefore remained in place.