The Court of Appeal has quashed the sentence imposed on a man for making a threat to kill or cause serious harm to a Garda and resentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended for two years on condition that he remain under Probation Service supervision. The sentence is concurrent with the sentences for criminal damage and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Kennedy on 8 April 2022, concerned an appeal against sentence severity. The appellant did not challenge the penalties for criminal damage or producing the article. His appeal focused on whether the threat sentence could run consecutively to those sentences.
The offences arose from events on 10 October 2019. The judgment says the appellant went three times to a house rented by Ms Galvin, broke windows with a wheel brace and wrench, and threw bricks inside. Gardaí arrested him. During the journey to Castlerea Garda Station, he threatened Garda Hickey and Hickey’s family. At the station, he continued making threats and spat in the Garda’s face. Hickey’s victim impact statement described the effect on his psychological wellbeing and his confidence at work.
The appellant argued that the single threat count covered remarks made in the patrol van, not later comments at the station. He submitted that the station remarks could aggravate the charged offence but should not be treated as part of one continuous offence to justify a consecutive sentence. The prosecution disputed that account and submitted that the count encompassed the appellant’s conduct, and that the offences involved distinct protected interests.
The Court of Appeal said the distinction between sentencing for an uncharged offence and considering evidence of other conduct as context must be respected. It found merit in the appellant’s argument: the station remarks did not form part of the charged offence, though they could be considered as circumstances aggravating the van offence. The sentencing judge had treated the count as including the events at the station. The court therefore found an error of principle and quashed the sentence on that count.
On resentencing, the court set a headline sentence of seven years, then reduced it to six years after considering mitigation, including the guilty plea, apology, alcoholism and engagement with addiction support in custody. It ordered the sentence to run concurrently, rather than consecutively, and suspended the final year subject to two years’ Probation Service supervision. The court said the conduct at the station aggravated the offence when assessing its gravity.