The Court of Appeal has increased the sentence for the burglary of an 83-year-old woman’s home in Cork, ruling that the original term was unduly lenient. It left the sentences for the other six offences unchanged.
The court quashed the sentence on Count No 2 and substituted a six-year term, with the final 12 months suspended. The new sentence is concurrent with the five-year sentences, with one year suspended, imposed on the remaining counts. It is consecutive to the 12-month robbery sentence that had previously been reactivated. The court said the suspended year would be subject to the same period and terms imposed by the sentencing court below.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, arguing that the sentences were unduly lenient. The respondent had pleaded guilty to seven offences: one aggravated burglary, five burglaries and impersonating a garda. The offences were committed in April 2020, while he was serving the suspended portion of an earlier robbery sentence.
The court found that the burglary at 34 Tyrone Place was substantially more serious than the other burglaries that night. The men entered the home of Mrs Eileen O’Brien, who was alone, elderly and cocooning during the pandemic. They identified themselves as gardaí, asked where she kept her money, and took cash including €2,500, €200 intended for her grandson’s confirmation and £80 sterling. The court said the confrontation, impersonation, psychological harm and material loss significantly aggravated the respondent’s culpability.
The appeal court set a nine-year headline sentence for that count, three years higher than the seven-year headline term selected by the sentencing judge. It then reduced the term by three years to reflect mitigation and encourage rehabilitation, producing the six-year sentence, with its final year suspended.
The court criticised the original approach of imposing the same headline sentence for all seven offences, which varied in seriousness. It said the aggravated burglary on 9 April was qualitatively different from ordinary burglary, and the offence against Mrs O’Brien was the most serious of the burglaries on 17 April. The court also concluded the offending was not wholly opportunistic: although there was no sophisticated advance planning, the burglaries involved a spree in a specific area and tools used to force entry.
However, the court said it could intervene in this undue-leniency appeal only if a sentence was substantially outside the norm. It was satisfied that threshold was met for the count involving Mrs O’Brien, but not for the remaining counts. Those sentences therefore stand.