The Court of Appeal allowed Brian Reilly’s appeal against sentence for unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and endangerment, then imposed new concurrent sentences. The court said the original sentencing judge had not made clear how mitigation was accounted for or why the sentences were consecutive.
The offences occurred on 22 August 2013 at Balgaddy, Co. Dublin. Reilly, who was 17 at the time, pleaded guilty. The judgment said he took a van containing delivery parcels after finding its keys in the ignition. When the owner approached, Reilly reversed into a wall and then drove forward, running over the owner’s foot and knocking him down. The owner suffered bruising, a wound to his arm that required stitches and left a permanent scar, and was out of work for six weeks. The van was also damaged. Reilly abandoned it in the Dunshaughlin area and was arrested shortly afterwards.
The Circuit Court had imposed four years’ imprisonment for unauthorised taking and a consecutive five years for endangerment, with the final three years of the latter term suspended. The Court of Appeal said it could not determine what allowance had been made for the guilty plea, admissions and other mitigation because no headline sentence had been identified for either offence. It also said the judge should explain a decision to impose consecutive terms where the offences aggravate one another. The appeal court described these as errors of principle and proceeded to resentence.
In resentencing, the court identified six years as the headline sentence for endangerment, noting the seriousness of the offences, Reilly’s previous convictions and the harm to the van’s owner. It allowed 12 months for mitigation, including the plea, admissions, and progress in prison. The court also noted further education, engagement with a prison psychologist and Reilly’s acknowledgment of the harm caused. It imposed six years’ imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended on conditions of good behaviour and Probation Service supervision for 18 months after release.
For unauthorised taking, the court set a four-year headline sentence and reduced it to three years to reflect mitigation. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently and to be backdated to the starting point identified by the Circuit Court judge. The judgment does not state that starting date.