The Court of Appeal has replaced a sentence imposed for false imprisonment after finding it represented a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence. It imposed six years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to two existing 12-month sentences for burglary and possession of articles for use in theft or burglary.
The ruling, delivered on 4 June 2015, followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which allows review of a sentence alleged to be unduly lenient. The original sentence, imposed by Limerick Circuit Court in October 2011, was six years with the final two years suspended. The Court of Appeal held the sentence was unduly lenient and resentenced the respondent afresh.
The false imprisonment arose from an incident on 3 May 2011 near Colbert Station in Limerick. The court’s account said the respondent confronted a woman returning to her car, produced a knife and took €40 from her handbag. He then made her drive to a cash machine, where she withdrew €500, and directed her towards Moyross. The woman later stopped the car and drove to Roxborough Garda station. She estimated the ordeal lasted about 20 minutes.
The court also recounted her victim impact statement, in which she described ongoing fear and difficulty travelling or carrying out everyday tasks without company. The respondent admitted the offences after his arrest. The judgment said his admissions were of critical importance to the prosecution and that he was remorseful.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to aggravating factors, including the knife, the forced journey, threats, robbery and the impact on the woman. The DPP also relied on the fact that the offence was committed while the respondent was on bail. The respondent’s counsel accepted that the original sentence was lenient but argued it was not unduly lenient and involved no error of principle.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had approached a difficult balancing exercise carefully, but had given aggravating factors insufficient weight. It set an eight-year starting point, citing the associated threats and the fact the offence was committed on bail. It then reduced that figure to six years to account for the respondent’s full cooperation and admissions, remorse, guilty plea and personal circumstances.
The new six-year sentence is consecutive to the two specified 12-month sentences. A separate 12-month sentence for another burglary, already ordered consecutive to those terms but concurrent with the false imprisonment sentence, remains in place. The judgment does not alter that arrangement.