The Court of Appeal has refused Alan Doyle’s appeal against a six-year sentence for aggravated burglary, finding no basis to treat the sentence as excessively severe. It said the sentence was lenient, but did not increase it because €6,000 compensation had been paid to the victim.
Doyle pleaded guilty at Portlaoise Circuit Criminal Court on 20 February 2017. The six-year sentence included a final three years suspended on conditions. Those conditions required him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for five years after release, undergo 18 months of post-release probation supervision, address his addictions as directed, abstain from alcohol and illicit drugs for five years, and submit to urinalysis. The judgment says the compensation was paid.
The Court of Appeal heard that Doyle drove two other people to a house at Killeen, County Laois. The two passengers, armed with a hurley and an extendable socket wrench, damaged the householder Alan Morgan’s car and followed him into his home after he confronted them. They smashed a patio window or doors. Morgan said he was getting a shotgun, although he did not have one, and the two fled. All three left in a car owned by Doyle, who was driving.
The judgment records that Doyle’s DNA was found on a hoodie discarded at the scene. He made no admissions when arrested, and his guilty plea was treated as having been entered at the earliest opportunity. The court also noted his work history, leg amputation following a road traffic accident, epilepsy, family responsibilities, remorse and 16 previous convictions. It said he had developed a heroin addiction in his late teens and apparently used heroin daily. A probation officer reported that he had not yet addressed his drug use, although he had become more motivated to consider a methadone maintenance programme.
Doyle’s appeal was limited to the submission that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the burden of paying compensation. The Court of Appeal said that without the payment, the sentence, though “very lenient”, would have been unduly lenient and intervention would have had to be considered. It concluded that the Circuit Court judge had comprehensively considered the relevant factors and refused the appeal. The original sentence and its conditions therefore remained in place.